If I might be so bold...A discussion on the likely future of warfare.
Tokay
I'd like to start a conversation about the realistic possibilities of
space and interplanetary warfare, and general interplanetary travel.
It's always kind of nagged at my mind when I think about the distant
future, and I've never really gotten to discuss it with anyone.
I'm not much of an expert on either, but I do know a little bit.
And for the sake of the discussion, let's not consider legality of
weapons or transportation methods, only possibility and feasibility.
I'm not sure if I should assume that we'll be advanced enough to
actually keep bases on other planets (Mars for example), but I feel
that establishing a lasting human presence on the moon and Mars is not
only likely, but inevitable, and for the sake of this topic, I'm going
to assume that it is. Feel free to shoot that down, though.
So, for the sake of argument, two opposing forces hold sizeable
colonies on Mars and the Moon, respectively. Their earthbound homes go
to War, and here we have the roots of our discussion.
Personally, I think the most likely form of interplanetary travel will
be with nuclear pulse engines, and warfare will be waged
spacecraft-to-spacecraft as little as possible due to the extremely
hazardous environment that is space.
With decompression and exposure to the extreme temperatures of space
hanging over the heads of those involved, engaging in combat with
projectiles and lasers (which don't seem feasible due to energy
consumption anyway) becomes extremely risky. The ways to overcome this
seem to be evasion tactics, armor, and some sort of means of deflecting
or destroying the projectile before impact. Likely, it'll be a
combination of the 3. But the first, evason, is difficult when dealing
with the extra weight added by extra armor and some sort of
countermeasure system, not to mention weapons systems. In fact, I'm
not even sure evasion will be a feasible course of action, because
inertia's such a big part of space flight.
So, is the warfare future of mankind simply building heavier and
heavier battleships? This seems exceedingly costly and inefficient. I
think it's more likely that combat in space will be avoided, and ground
based defenses will be built up.
However, there is also the possibility that we end up not using manned
craft for agressive purposes, that computer controlled drones will do
the fighting for us. but at that point, why bother? Then it's a
numbers game, a war of attrition; whoever runs out of supplies first
would be doomed.
Also, it seems, within the confines of the premise I set up (two
opposing nations with extraterrestrial colonies) that the colonies
would never go to war with one another, due to the extremely fragile
nature of their own existence.
I could go on, but let me hear some ideas from the collective that is
the Internet.
Erik Max Francis
> I could go on, but let me hear some ideas from the collective that is
> the Internet.
This has been a perennial discussion on rec.arts.sf.science, so you've
come to the right place. Do a Google Groups search through past
rec.arts.sf.science threads and you'll have a lot of useful reading.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
There are not fifty ways of fighting, there is only one: to be the
conqueror. -- Andrew Malraux, 1937
Warren Okuma
"Tokay" <tokay...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136629402.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
War is hell, and it's still gonna be hell. Space superiority is very
important. I see stealth playing a major role, and unmanned combat drones
(spaceships) in space with manned command centers. Money is no option when
your life is at stake.
Raghar
news:1136629402.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> I'm new here, but if I may....
>
> I'd like to start a conversation about the realistic
> possibilities of space and interplanetary warfare, and general
Note that space is less hazardeous envirionment than 100 meters
under water surface. Majority of space warship would have inert
athmosphere, or be entirely in vacuum to avoid internal fires and
shock propagation. (Combat space suit anyone?)
Chance to hit = speed of projectile * k / ( sqrt(acceleration *
sqrt(size1 * size2)))
If speed of a projectile is c, then acceleration is the second the
most important factor.
Evasion action might also mean change orientation to the threath
vector.
Ships could be larger, possibly, not neccessary heavier. Zepelins
construction constraints apply here.
Jake
>
> "Tokay" <tokay...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1136629402.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
>
> > I'm new here, but if I may....
> >
> > I'd like to start a conversation about the realistic
> > possibilities of space and interplanetary warfare, and general
>
> Note that space is less hazardeous envirionment than 100 meters
> under water surface. Majority of space warship would have inert
> athmosphere, or be entirely in vacuum to avoid internal fires and
> shock propagation. (Combat space suit anyone?)
>
> Chance to hit = speed of projectile * k / ( sqrt(acceleration *
> sqrt(size1 * size2)))
It helps to cite a source when you post uncommon equations like the
above to avoid being accused of POOTA ("pulled out of thin air")
syndrome, especially when you don't define what k and several other
variables are.
Raghar
195.250.128.45:
> Chance to hit = speed of projectile * k / ( sqrt(acceleration *
> sqrt(size1 * size2)))
>
Oups a little typo. Chance to hit = speed of projectile * k * (
sqrt(sqrt(size1 * size2)/ acceleration ))
This equation is just for showing factors relations.(distance, and
other factors were removed).
k is obviously constant. (Do you need LD20, or LD50?)
acceleration means ship acceleration.
size1 * size2 is an area of target at the impact time.
If you need equation for guided projectile, you need to define if
there is reasonable to compute delta v. (It's unnecessary for some
drives) And you are mainly interested in time of movement between
point defence range, and engagement range of the missile. (laser,
nuke, guided penetrator)
Bill Gray
>
> So, for the sake of argument, two opposing forces hold sizeable
> colonies on Mars and the Moon, respectively. Their earthbound homes go
> to War, and here we have the roots of our discussion.
>
>
Why have military bases on the moon or Mars? The enemy then knows where
to target you, and you have the penalty of being in a gravity well. Why
not just base in space? The enemy now has to find you and you can launch
without gravity. Since both the moon and Mars are vacuums, there's no
advantage to being on them.
Given the lethality of nuclear weapons and using submarines as the
closest extant example, I'd say concealment will be paramount to
survival. Armored spaceships will be as useful as battleships, that is,
they will be quickly destroyed. My guess is that victory will go to the
side with the best physics.
Bill,
Phoenix
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Why have military bases on the moon or Mars? The enemy then knows where
>to target you, and you have the penalty of being in a gravity well. Why
>not just base in space? The enemy now has to find you and you can launch
>without gravity. Since both the moon and Mars are vacuums, there's no
>advantage to being on them.
The moon is a much better fortress. Space is awfully open - and I
suspect stealth technologies won't be sufficient to protect orbital
bases.
>Given the lethality of nuclear weapons and using submarines as the
>closest extant example, I'd say concealment will be paramount to
>survival. Armored spaceships will be as useful as battleships, that is,
>they will be quickly destroyed. My guess is that victory will go to the
>side with the best physics.
How do you conceal yourself in a vacuum?
When is the last time a battleship was destroyed? What was the cost
of destroying it? Battleships are mobile fortresses.
Derek Lyons
>When is the last time a battleship was destroyed?
That would be either Roma or Yamato.
>What was the cost of destroying it?
Roma - one fairly cheap guided bomb. Yamato - a dozen or so fairly
cheap bombs and torpedoes.
>Battleships are mobile fortresses.
Yah. Fortresses protected by tissue paper when compared with the
weapons ranged against them.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Bill Gray
>
>
>
>>Given the lethality of nuclear weapons and using submarines as the
>>closest extant example, I'd say concealment will be paramount to
>>survival. Armored spaceships will be as useful as battleships, that is,
>>they will be quickly destroyed. My guess is that victory will go to the
>>side with the best physics.
>
>
> How do you conceal yourself in a vacuum?
>
How do U.S. stealth aircraft conceal themselves now? With electronic
means, vacuum has nothing to do with it.
> When is the last time a battleship was destroyed? What was the cost
> of destroying it? Battleships are mobile fortresses.
The last time they were destroyed was the last time they were used in
sea battles, that being WWII. They were sunk by aircraft and submarines.
The lethality of modern weapons means that armor plating on ships is
ineffective. They must strive not to be found, and if found, to
neutralize the enemy's weapons (shooting down incoming missles, for
example.)
Bill,
Phoenix
IsaacKuo
Bill Gray wrote:
>Howard Brazee wrote:
>>How do you conceal yourself in a vacuum?
>How do U.S. stealth aircraft conceal themselves now?
>With electronic means, vacuum has nothing to do with it.
Yes it does. The biggest thing that stealth aircraft
have going in their favor is the existence of this
dense atmosphere of gas all around them. Besides
obscuring their thermal infrared heat signature, it
gives them an unlimited heat sink to dump waste heat
into.
In the vacuum of space, there is no such heat sink,
and there is no obscuring atmosphere. That means that
waste heat has to be radiated away, and the physics
of the situation ensure that this radiation will be
highly visible against the cold 3K background.
So, this suggests an obvious strategy--what if there
is no waste heat? Just shut down all your systems,
and coast your way to the target. Unfortunately,
the Sun exists. It bathes the Solar System in
radiation so a spacecraft can't help but have waste
heat.
>The lethality of modern weapons means that armor
>plating on ships is ineffective. They must strive
>not to be found, and if found, to neutralize the
>enemy's weapons (shooting down incoming missles, for
>example.)
With plausible interplanetary technology, there
might be anywhere between hours and months to
see incoming missiles and do something about them
(depending on the range). There isn't any horizon
for missiles to hide behind. But that assumes
hostilities break out at long range. If the opposing
forces started off right next to each other, then
the situation is radically different.
Isaac Kuo
John Schilling
>Howard Brazee wrote:
>>>Given the lethality of nuclear weapons and using submarines as the
>>>closest extant example, I'd say concealment will be paramount to
>>>survival. Armored spaceships will be as useful as battleships, that is,
>>>they will be quickly destroyed. My guess is that victory will go to the
>>>side with the best physics.
>> How do you conceal yourself in a vacuum?
>How do U.S. stealth aircraft conceal themselves now? With electronic
>means, vacuum has nothing to do with it.
Hmm; what definition of "electronic" are you using here?
Stealth aircraft conceal themselves from radar using a combination of
shape and material properties. It's the way these things interact with
EM radiation that does the stealth thing, but there are no transistors,
chips, vacuum tubes or any other such gadgetry involved except in some
ancillary roles. You may be thinking of ECM, radar jammers and the
like, which is not the same thing as "stealth".
More importantly, stealth aircraft conceal themselves from infrared
sensors by a combination of shape and air-cooling of their engines.
A stealth aircraft that had to use a standard rocket engine rather
than a turbofan, would not be able to conceal its engine exhaust from
IR detection.
And the scaling laws of the two sorts of sensor, suggest that it is
the IR ones that are going to be most useful over even modestly
astronomical distances.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Bill Gray
My point is that since WWII aircraft and naval ships don't rely on
armor. They rely on stealth and the ability to destroy an attacker. The
reason is that armor is not effective against weapons deployed since the
1940's.
Bill,
Phoenix
Derek Lyons
>How do U.S. stealth aircraft conceal themselves now? With electronic
>means,
Um, no.
John Schilling
>John Schilling wrote:
>>>Howard Brazee wrote:
They mostly rely on ability to destroy an attacker, and the ones that
rely on stealth rely on the physical properties of the medium in order
to achieve that stealth. In space, stealth via physican properties
of the medium is right out.
And, since the 1980s, aircraft and naval ships *have* relied on armor
as well as stealth and the ability to destroy an attacker. The idea
that armor could be wholly dispensed with, was itself dispensed with
after the costly lessons of Vietnam, the Falklands, and various other
conflicts and accidents.
>The reason is that armor is not effective against weapons deployed since
>the 1940's.
Funny, my brother swears by his. And I've seen the before-and-after
pictures; I'd be short a brother if the Hummer hadn't been armored.
I think you, along with a lot of people in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, are
confusing "armor is not impenetrable to the most powerful weapons", with
"armor is not effective against weapons".
Armor, even if it isn't of the impenetrable variety, is effective against
modern weapons. Which is why at least some armor is used in most modern
fighting vehicles - land, sea, and air - and the wholly unarmored ones are
often rightly regarded as pieces of shit.
And weapons systems which cannot be made really stealthy - say, on account
of not having background clutter and heat-absorbing fluids in their operating
environment - are likely to call for more than the usual ammount of armor.
Quite possibly to the extent that putting them on a moon or planet, where
they get free armor, heat sink, *and* background clutter, is worth the
loss of mobility.
And whatever your point is, it would have helped if you had not made false
statements about stealth aircraft to support it.
midde...@mad.scientist.com
Not that battleships are a big deal in naval warfare, but when was the
last time a battleship was actually used in combat against a meaningful
foe that actually sought to win a military victory not a political one?
(Hint WWII, think Yamoto) That is all.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Armor, even if it isn't of the impenetrable variety, is effective against
>modern weapons. Which is why at least some armor is used in most modern
>fighting vehicles - land, sea, and air - and the wholly unarmored ones are
>often rightly regarded as pieces of shit.
Inpenetratable Armour never existed. But Armour has never been
useless.
We even protect jet engines with small-arms Armour - to good effect.
Howard Brazee
<midde...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
>> When is the last time a battleship was destroyed? What was the cost
>> of destroying it? Battleships are mobile fortresses.
>
>Not that battleships are a big deal in naval warfare, but when was the
>last time a battleship was actually used in combat against a meaningful
>foe that actually sought to win a military victory not a political one?
>(Hint WWII, think Yamoto) That is all.
Because you excluded a valid reason for war and war ships. Political
victories count.
In space, our current definitions of battleship will be very
different. Ideal amounts of Armour and uses of various sizes of ships
have changed throughout naval history - they certainly will change
throughout space war history.
We can model a space ship after a destroyer instead of a battleship -
what does that mean? Nothing at all right now.
Derek Lyons
>My point is that since WWII aircraft and naval ships don't rely on
>armor. They rely on stealth and the ability to destroy an attacker.
You haven't actually studied any aircraft or naval ships designed
after WWII have you?
Tokay
going on it would be logical to assume that there would be military
defenses for them. An orbital base for Mars seems logical, but I
figured launching from the moon wouldn't be problematic.
I'd still figure that small, nimble craft would be the most effective
method of combat, but I'm not quite sure it's possible to have
spacecraft as nimble as earthbound jets. The lack of available oxygen
to combine with fuel means it has to be carried on board, but there's
no real necessity for combustion propulsion in space.....
At least there's no real need for aerodynamic craft.
It seems possible to me that a battleship could use ice mined from
asteroids and such as both a propulsion source and armor plating;
there's no real need to store it internally, and it could be heated by
an onboard reactor into steam for propulsion.
Although energy weapons may end up being the norm on large craft, I
don't think they'll be all that common. That's a LOT of matertials to
throw into space. perhaps the required materials could also be found
in asteroids and moons. But that's a big economy issue.
Also, how useful would explosives be in space? It strikes me that
they'd be particularly devastating concussively, but the shock would
quickly dissipate. Simple projectiles would probably be a lot more
effective, I think.
And on the topic of earthly battleships, don't we use missile frigates
more than battleships these days?
Bernard Peek
Tokay <tokay...@gmail.com> writes
>I'm new here, but if I may....
>
>I'd like to start a conversation about the realistic possibilities of
>space and interplanetary warfare, and general interplanetary travel.
>It's always kind of nagged at my mind when I think about the distant
>future, and I've never really gotten to discuss it with anyone.
Interplanetary warfare is the easy one. Everyone dies.
Two opposing forces could launch kinetic weapons capable of destroying a
planetary ecology. It might take months or years to arrive but there's
essentially nothing that can be done about it once launched. Most SF
that I've read handwaves this away by assuming some sort of gentleman's
agreement. In reality both sides are likely to launch an attack then sit
back and wait to die.
Combat in space has limited value except to protect the asteroid mining
bases or merchant vessels in-transit. You can't protect fixed planetary
bases and leaving your ships near them just makes them easier targets.
The difficulty here is how to build weapons that can disable your
opponent without obliterating whatever you are attempting to capture.
--
Bernard Peek
London, UK. DBA, Manager, Trainer & Author.
Bill Gray
Very well, I shall qualify my statement. I do not believe that armor
will not stop a nuclear weapon. My original purpose was to argue that
future spacecraft would have to either hide or stop an attacker.
As to "false statements", stealth aircraft do carry ECM. There may be a
reason.
Bill,
Phoenix
IsaacKuo
Bernard Peek wrote:
>Interplanetary warfare is the easy one. Everyone dies.
Not really.
>Two opposing forces could launch kinetic weapons
>capable of destroying a planetary ecology.
Error 1--It's entirely plausible that only one or
neither side even has a planetary ecology to
begin with.
>It might take months or years to arrive but there's
>essentially nothing that can be done about it once
>launched.
Error 2--Sure there are things which can be done.
You can shoot the incoming to destroy any guidance
systems, and at that point even a small nudge will
divert them off of a collision course. The amount
of time involved plausibly gives the defenders a
chance to do something even if they start off with
no military capability whatsoever!
This stands in stark contrast to Cold War nuclear
war scenarios. The very short timescales involved
meant that a first strike could plausibly knock out
the enemy's retaliation capability even before the
enemy was entirely aware they were under attack.
>Combat in space has limited value except to protect
>the asteroid mining bases or merchant vessels
>in-transit. You can't protect fixed planetary
>bases and leaving your ships near them just makes
>them easier targets.
Let's say Mars declares war on Earth, and sends a
large chunk of Diemos toward Earth. What are the
Earthlings going to do about it? Just sit back
and wait to die for the next several months, with
the smug satisfaction that their own counterattack
will kill off Mars colony also because Mars colony
isn't going to do anything to defend themselves
either?
Nonsense. Both sides have options to do something
in the months it takes to cross interplanetary
space. Plausibly, Earth will send a fleet to
intercept the incoming moon chunk. Plausibly,
Mars will have military weaponry on the moon chunk
itself and/or on spacecraft escorting the moon
chunk. What happens when they meet in deep space?
Combat.
Isaac Kuo
Jens Egon Nyborg
If the chunk is turned into a plasma sufficiently early it will be
impossible to steer. So, how small could one of your bombtrack-lasers be?
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>>My point is that since WWII aircraft and naval ships don't rely on
>>armor. They rely on stealth and the ability to destroy an attacker.
>
>You haven't actually studied any aircraft or naval ships designed
>after WWII have you?
Well, we can always use "rely" as a weasel word. Ships never have
been able to rely solely on armor. or mobility. or arms.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Very well, I shall qualify my statement. I do not believe that armor
>will not stop a nuclear weapon. My original purpose was to argue that
>future spacecraft would have to either hide or stop an attacker.
>
>As to "false statements", stealth aircraft do carry ECM. There may be a
>reason.
Interesting choice. One way of using a nuclear weapon is to fire a
bomb from a distance away. Armor works in this case.
BDH
is stupid.
- Why are they doing this?
- How do you separate and launch a chunk of a moon without people
noticing long beforehand?
- What do you do about the massive number of hardened strategic nuclear
missiles coming towards you?
- Too many other problems to list.
Second, stealth in space IS possible. You just look like a small
asteroid, and don't use much thrust or count on not being watched, and
radiate your heat away on your outward facing side when nobody's
looking if you would heat up your asteroid enough to be noticeable.
Third - the future of warfare is this:
- Fighting fanatics.
- Fighting (physical) piracy.
- Indefinite nuclear standoffs with smiles, and trading.
- Fighting low-tech gangs pillaging natural resources and forcing
locals into slavery and fighting, as well as their gunrunners, on the
off chance that the developed world starts caring.
No fancy space battles: Too little to gain, too much mutually assured
destruction, missiles are too easy to make too tough to kill, directed
energy weapons will never work very well, sci-fi style shields are
impossible. Etc.
IsaacKuo
Jens Egon Nyborg wrote:
>IsaacKuo wrote:
>>Bernard Peek wrote:
>>>Two opposing forces could launch kinetic weapons
>>>capable of destroying a planetary ecology.
>>>It might take months or years to arrive but there's
>>>essentially nothing that can be done about it once
>>>launched.
>>Let's say Mars declares war on Earth, and sends a
>>large chunk of Diemos toward Earth. What are the
>>Earthlings going to do about it? Just sit back
>>and wait to die for the next several months, with
>>the smug satisfaction that their own counterattack
>>will kill off Mars colony also because Mars colony
>>isn't going to do anything to defend themselves
>>either?
>>Nonsense. Both sides have options to do something
>>in the months it takes to cross interplanetary
>>space.
>If the chunk is turned into a plasma sufficiently
>early it will be impossible to steer. So, how small
>could one of your bombtrack-lasers be?
I haven't the foggiest. The problem is that the
bombtrack laser concept's performance figures would
have to be based on the performance figures for
the SDI nuclear bomb pumped X-ray laser concept.
It's not even clear whether the X-ray laser concept
would even really work, much less what the performance
figures would actually be like. I think anyone who
really knows isn't allowed to talk about it.
So, the bombtrack laser concept is good enough for
science fiction, but I don't think we can even say
for certain it would even work at all, much less
how well it would perform.
Isaac Kuo
IsaacKuo
BDH wrote:
>First, Mars declaring war on Earth and sending a chunk
>of Deimos inward is stupid.
> - Why are they doing this?
It's a reductio absurdium argument. In order to discredit
Bernard Peek's assertion that interplanetary warfare is
simply inescapable MAD, I assume his premise and show it
actually does NOT result in simple inescapable MAD.
Why would a Mars colony launch an apocalyptic WMD attack
on Earth? Why does any human kill another human?
The same reasons might apply, simply scaled up.
Revenge, racism, religion, political ideology, greed...
Logically, the costs of war are so terrible that in a
sane world war would never happen. And yet, war does
happen. Therefore, we are not living in a sane world.
>- How do you separate and launch a chunk of a moon
>without people noticing long beforehand?
They don't. People notice it. According to Bernard
Peek's scenario, they don't do anything about it,
except exact apocalyptic revenge in kind without
defending themselves. Which is absurd. The Earthlings
have months to do something about the threat.
>- What do you do about the massive number of hardened
>strategic nuclear missiles coming towards you?
According to Bernard Peek's scenario, you simply
let them obliterate yourself also. Which is absurd.
You've got months of time to do something about
them. Like shoot them down. You even have enough
time to manufacture new weapons specifically to
shoot down the incoming weapons.
>- Too many other problems to list.
>Second, stealth in space IS possible. You just look like a small
>asteroid, and don't use much thrust
If you don't use much thrust, then you're exactly
as much of a threat as a typical real life small
asteroid. Which is to say, none at all. You're
too far away from anything to be any threat to
anything.
Now, if you use some thrust to put yourself vaguely
on a collision course with some destination, two
things will happen:
1. Your thrust maneuver will be seen, and you will
obviously NOT just by a small asteroid.
and
2. Your target destination will be instantly deduced
by everyone in the Solar System.
>or count on not being watched,
Not plausible. The problem is that actual small asteroids
are too easy to detect and are too much of a long term
threat for them to plausibly be "not watched".
>and radiate your heat away on your outward facing
>side when nobody's looking if you would heat up
>your asteroid enough to be noticeable.
Even if your ship's systems generate no heat whatsoever,
the Sun will unhelpfully radiate energy at you. This is
enough heat to make real life asteroids detectable from
across the Solar System, and the future humans have a big
incentive to actually keep a vigilant lookout for them
considering the threat they pose.
And plausibly, there is no "outward facing side". In a
Solar System where mankind has expanded to interplanetary
colonization, there are plausibly sensor drones all around
in all directions.
>Third - the future of warfare is this:
>- Fighting fanatics.
Yes.
>- Fighting (physical) piracy.
Maybe. Note that real life piracy exists today.
But also note that piracy is often officially or
unofficially sanctioned by the government/military.
Pirates throughout time have always needed some
haven to operate from. Piracy tends to get stamped
out when the local military forces don't want the
pirates around.
In the places where piracy is rampant today, it's
essentially sanctioned by the local government.
>- Indefinite nuclear standoffs with smiles, and trading.
Possibly. But note that our only real life nuclear
standoffs so far have NOT been with "smiles", and
they have NOT prevented indirect warfare. Vietnam?
Afghanistan?
We were lucky last time, since both sides were fighting
for ideologies which did NOT include the goal of
just plain slaughtering the enemy dead. The same
can't be said of the current struggle.
>- Fighting low-tech gangs pillaging natural resources
>and forcing locals into slavery and fighting, as well
>as their gunrunners, on the off chance that the
>developed world starts caring.
Perhaps.
>No fancy space battles: Too little to gain, too much
>mutually assured destruction, missiles are too easy
>to make too tough to kill,
Plausibly, missile in space battles will be too easy
to kill. The basic problem is that space is really
really big, and missiles are in comparison really
really slow. Thus, it plausibly takes a long time
for a missile to reach the target and the target has
a long time to do something about it.
In particular, a defensive anti-missile missile is
plausibly much cheaper than an offensive anti-ship
missile.
An offensive missile needs to have a high delta-v
capability in order to actually reach the target.
Otherwise, the target can simply thrust away or
sideways to the missile with superior delta-v,
and the missile will never reach the target.
A defensive missile, in contrast, needs only minimal
delta-v, so that it intercepts the incoming at a
distance from the target. Then the kinetic energy of
the high velocity incoming missile is literally used
against itself when it impacts with the defensive
missile.
>directed energy weapons will never work very well,
Directed energy weapons are plausibly able to shoot
down incoming missiles even before they reach the
point-blank ranges appropriate for cheap defensive
missiles.
Current technology high energy lasers are already
pretty promising, at the long ranges plausible for
spaceship combat. Nevertheless, it's not a mature
technology. It's presumptive to assume the usefulness
of directed energy weapons in either direction
(completely useless or completely dominant).
>sci-fi style shields are impossible. Etc.
Sci-fi style shielding is impossible, but there are
some types of shielding which are vaguely similar.
In particular, a magnetic field can protect a ship
from charged particles. If space combat impact
velocities are high enough to vaporize projectiles
into plasma, then a magnetic field can be a critical
second layer to a CIWS defense. The CIWS launches
projectiles and/or missiles which impact against the
incoming at point blank range. This converts the
incoming into plasma, which is then harmlessly
deflected with the magnetic field.
Even at lower space combat velocities, it's possible
for a magnetic field to be used as an inner layer
behind an "electric armor" mesh. Electric armor is
a relatively new armor concept which is similar to
a bug zapper. The vehicle's armor has two spaced
metal layers which are oppositely charged by a
capacitor. When it's penetrated by an RPG, it makes
a short-circuit which zaps the pentrator. In a
spacecraft application, these metal armor layers
could be replaced with a lighweight mesh.
There are a lot of potential possibilities. There's
isn't just one obvious "answer" to what future warfare
will be like.
Isaac Kuo
BDH
being worked on works completely differently. That has to do with HEAT
slugs completing a circuit and splattering.
Directed energy weapons are able to shoot down some things because no
real effort is put into protecting them. Something missile-sized,
reflective and spinning is much to hard to destroy with a laser. They
are also impractically large compared to the things shooting stuff they
shoot down as it is.
Anti-missile missiles are cheaper than offensive missiles /maybe/.
However, they are probably not cheaper than the decoys.
Basically the best defense in space combat, though (other than "move"):
surround yourself with a lot of rubble. However, this too is
impractical. Any offensive weapons able to hit a moving ship can focus
on a spot you can't predict and punch through any rubble you can put
out at a distance leaving you protected from nukes. Missiles can also
use a sacrificial shield and a magnetic field as well as ships.
So, you say, thus the anti-missile missiles. They converge where the
missiles are converging, and body-block them. Whoever can change
direction at the last minute wins, and that's the lower-delta V ones.
Well, no dice - a missile moving around will need a lot more stuff than
its mass to get taken out.
Note that at the velocities involved, a lump of uranium with a creamy
tritiated and deuterated li-6 filling is probably a decent nuke.
IsaacKuo
BDH wrote:
>As for the magnetic fields, yes, but the "electric armor"
>currently being worked on works completely differently.
>That has to do with HEAT slugs completing a circuit and
>splattering.
Which is why I suggested in space electric armor would work
in a different way than currently researched electric
armor. This potential future electric armor "mesh" would
zap the incoming projectile, turning it into plasma.
This plasma is still dangerous, however, and could be
deflected by a magnetic field.
>Directed energy weapons are able to shoot down some
>things because no real effort is put into protecting them.
>Something missile-sized, reflective and spinning is much
>to hard to destroy with a laser.
The current potential targets are already assumed to be
missile-sized. A reflective coating and spinning might
reduce laser effectiveness by an order of magnitude,
but future lasers will plausibly be several orders of
magnitude more powerful.
More importantly, future lasers being used to defend
against missiles traveling across space combat distances
may plausibly have a couple orders of magnitude more
TIME to shoot down incoming missiles. Roughly, it
takes 100 times longer to cross 10,000km than 100km.
The former is a plausible range for space combat to
take place at. The latter is a plausible range for
Earth combat to take place at.
>They are also impractically large compared to the
>things shooting stuff they shoot down as it is.
Not really. Plausible space combat ranges will be
much longer than Earth combat. An offensive missile
could plausibly need to be roughly the size of an
ICBM just to reach the target. A laser suitable
for knocking out that missile might not be all that
much larger. It could plausibly even be smaller.
>Anti-missile missiles are cheaper than offensive
>missiles /maybe/. However, they are probably not
>cheaper than the decoys.
Decoys aren't cheap. Offensive missiles would need
to have a large delta-v capability. Decoys escorting
those missiles would need to have just as much delta-v
capability. There's really not much difference between
the missile and the "decoy".
>Basically the best defense in space combat, though
>(other than "move"): surround yourself with a lot
>of rubble.
That's terribly inefficient. The amount of mass
involved is very high, because you're inefficiently
protecting in all directions.
What's far more efficient is to only defend in the
directions of an incoming threat.
One way to do this is to store your "rubble" onboard
the ship itself in the form of CIWS ammunition.
This has the disadvantage that each burst provides
only momentary protection.
Another way is to put up a "shield" of rubble and
then move your ship to the opposite side of the
threat. This has the disadvantage that it can
only provide protection in one direction at a time.
You can do both, of course. You start off with no
"rubble shield" at all. If you detect an incoming
threat, you throw out a rubble shield, and maneuver
your ship to the opposite side of the threat. If
another threat comes from a different direction,
you use CIWS to throw up another shield in that
direction.
>However, this too is impractical. Any offensive
>weapons able to hit a moving ship can focus on a
>spot you can't predict and punch through any rubble
>you can put out at a distance leaving you protected
>from nukes.
It's pretty easy to predict almost the exact spot
the incoming missile must pass through, to within
slightly larger than the size of your ship.
With a relative velocity of, say, 100km/s, it takes
only .01 seconds to cross a distance of 1km.
That's not a whole lot of time for a terminal
thrust maneuver or proximity warhead explosion to
impart a sideways shift in the impact point.
So, you could have a "rubble field" a little bit
larger than the ship, and the ship could hide 1km
behind the rubble field.
>Missiles can also use a sacrificial shield and a
>magnetic field as well as ships.
Yes, indeed. This rapidly gets very expensive,
but the expense may be an unavoidable requirement
for the weapon system to be effective.
>So, you say, thus the anti-missile missiles.
>They converge where the missiles are converging,
>and body-block them. Whoever can change
>direction at the last minute wins, and that's
>the lower-delta V ones.
Roughly, yes. The anti-missile missiles can afford
to use high thrust, low delta-v thrusters, so they
plausibly have a maneuverability advantage.
>Well, no dice - a missile moving around will need
>a lot more stuff than its mass to get taken out.
The plausible impact velocity is very high, so
it really only takes a small fraction of the
incoming's mass to take it out. The same reason why
a small missile can plausibly blow up a large
spaceship is the reason why an even smaller missile
can plausibly blow up a small missile.
>Note that at the velocities involved, a lump of
>uranium with a creamy tritiated and deuterated
>li-6 filling is probably a decent nuke.
This strongly depends on your definition of "decent".
Precise implosion geometry is critical for acheiving
a good yield.
Still, I like the idea of using small nukes as a
defensive armament against incoming missiles. For
one thing, such nukes could plausibly be used for
the propulsion system in the first place (like
Mag-Orion). For another thing, the problem of
precisely aiming your defensive armament at the
incoming is greatly simplified.
Theoretically, defensive anti-missiles could be
perfectly designed to perfectly intercept incoming
missiles with perfectly the right minimum amount
of "oomph" and maneuverability to take them out.
Practically, it seems a lot easier to just nuke 'em.
Isaac Kuo
BDH
hit all the stuff. As for predicting the exact trajectories of
everything, the sensors are too easy to dazzle. Especially with nukes.
Inflatable decoys are light.
Bernard Peek
IsaacKuo <mec...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>Bernard Peek wrote:
>
>>Interplanetary warfare is the easy one. Everyone dies.
>
>Not really.
>
>>Two opposing forces could launch kinetic weapons
>>capable of destroying a planetary ecology.
>
>Error 1--It's entirely plausible that only one or
>neither side even has a planetary ecology to
>begin with.
Even an ecology under domes is a planetary ecology and easy to destroy.
>
>>It might take months or years to arrive but there's
>>essentially nothing that can be done about it once
>>launched.
>
>Error 2--Sure there are things which can be done.
>You can shoot the incoming to destroy any guidance
>systems, and at that point even a small nudge will
>divert them off of a collision course. The amount
>of time involved plausibly gives the defenders a
>chance to do something even if they start off with
>no military capability whatsoever!
No. I wasn't considering using guided munitions. Just load up a
freighter with a few billion passive devices and dump them out of the
airlock. Unless you can intercept the freighter before it jettisons its
load you don't have a prayer. Once they are launched there isn't any way
to stop them.
>>Combat in space has limited value except to protect
>>the asteroid mining bases or merchant vessels
>>in-transit. You can't protect fixed planetary
>>bases and leaving your ships near them just makes
>>them easier targets.
>
>Let's say Mars declares war on Earth, and sends a
>large chunk of Diemos toward Earth. What are the
>Earthlings going to do about it? Just sit back
>and wait to die for the next several months, with
>the smug satisfaction that their own counterattack
>will kill off Mars colony also because Mars colony
>isn't going to do anything to defend themselves
>either?
>
>Nonsense. Both sides have options to do something
>in the months it takes to cross interplanetary
>space. Plausibly, Earth will send a fleet to
>intercept the incoming moon chunk. Plausibly,
>Mars will have military weaponry on the moon chunk
>itself and/or on spacecraft escorting the moon
>chunk. What happens when they meet in deep space?
>Combat.
I don't think that's a plausible scenario. The Martians might launch a
chunk of Deimos but would set off demolition charges as soon as it is on
its final trajectory. Not only does that kill Earth but it also makes it
more difficult for Earth to counterattack, as the spaceships will have
to avoid the meteor swarm between the planets. Of course Earth could
break loose a chunk of the moon and kick that into a different orbit to
land on Mars.
In practise I think it's more likely that both Mars and Earth would
choose asteroids as weapons. There are probably some available that
could be targeted to arrive at the interception point from ahead of the
planet. That would add the planet's orbital speed to the impact speed.
John Schilling
>
>First, Mars declaring war on Earth and sending a chunk of Deimos inward
>is stupid.
>- Why are they doing this?
To destroy and/or intimidate their Earthly enemies. It won't actually
work, true, but it's an obvious enough thing to try that it needs to
be discussed.
>Second, stealth in space IS possible. You just look like a small
>asteroid, and don't use much thrust or count on not being watched, and
>radiate your heat away on your outward facing side when nobody's
>looking if you would heat up your asteroid enough to be noticeable.
And accomplish absolutely nothing useful. Thing about small asteroids
is, they're out in the middle of nowhere and not going anywhere anyone
cares about. The very small number of exceptions, by the time there's
anything in space worth fighting over, all of those small asteroids
will have been charted and examined quite thoroughly, and people are
going to notice that you aren't one of them.
If you don't use much thrust, your thing-that-looks-like-a-small-asteroid
*stays* out in the middle of nowhere going noplace interesting. If you
count on not being watched, you'll be disappointed. If you radiate heat
on your outward side when nobody's looking, you'll find that your enemy
has observation posts out beyond any interesting place you might want to
be and he is looking inward from all directions.
Stealth is only possible in space if your enemy isn't a competent
spacefaring military power, who doesn't bother to build the appropriate
gear or use it to look for his enemy.
>Third - the future of warfare is this:
>- Fighting fanatics.
>- Fighting (physical) piracy.
>- Indefinite nuclear standoffs with smiles, and trading.
>- Fighting low-tech gangs pillaging natural resources and forcing
>locals into slavery and fighting, as well as their gunrunners, on the
>off chance that the developed world starts caring.
I heard a whole lot of people saying the same thing in 1990. And, while
it was before my time, that was a popular sentiment in 1920 as well.
Oops.
BDH
current ones.
How about we start here: you explain why you think that laser output
will increase by several orders of magnitude (from today's CO2 and
chemical lasers) and then I (probably) explain to you why you're wrong.
John Schilling
>
>In message <1136629402.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>Tokay <tokay...@gmail.com> writes
>>I'm new here, but if I may....
>>
>>I'd like to start a conversation about the realistic possibilities of
>>space and interplanetary warfare, and general interplanetary travel.
>>It's always kind of nagged at my mind when I think about the distant
>>future, and I've never really gotten to discuss it with anyone.
>Interplanetary warfare is the easy one. Everyone dies.
>Two opposing forces could launch kinetic weapons capable of destroying a
>planetary ecology.
Not necessarily. Launching kinetic weapons capable of destroying a
planetary ecology, is in fact quite difficult. It is easy to concieve
of interplanetary civilizations large enough to engage in organized
warfare, but not capable of projects quite that ambitious.
More to the point...
>It might take months or years to arrive but there's essentially nothing
>that can be done about it once launched.
...not even close. The same technology that can be used to launch a
kinetic energy WMD, can be used to divert one. And the latter task is
fundamentally easier - the attacker has to deliver the weapon's mass
all the way from where it is, to where the target is. The defender
only needs to divert the incoming mass a little bit, one planetary
radius or so.
>Most SF that I've read handwaves this away by assuming some sort of
>gentleman's agreement. In reality both sides are likely to launch an
>attack then sit back and wait to die.
In reality, both sides are likely to do everything they can to frustrate
each other's attack plans. Both with classic defenses, and with the
good-offense style.
I think you're making the classic unstoppable-weapon mistake: thinking
up (or reading about) an idea for a new superweapon, then matching it
against *existing* defenses.
You're not alone. Even Heinlein stumbled on that one, giving his
Loonies gigantic mass-driver catapults but allowing the Earthers
nothing but 1960s-style ABM systems to stop them.
Way it really works is, long before the big mass driver gets built,
a hundred military officers in a dozen nations have written white
papers describing the consequences of such a thing being used as a
weapon. Then their respective armed forces either go out and make
sure the mass driver never gets built, or they buckle down and devote
a lot more time, resources, and talent than you can imagine to finding
new defenses or doctrines to deal with the situation.
Heck, I've barely dabbled in the subject, by professional standards,
and even I can see the form the countermeasures would take.
Russell Wallace
> Even an ecology under domes is a planetary ecology and easy to destroy.
Such claims are all the better for proof.
> No. I wasn't considering using guided munitions. Just load up a
> freighter with a few billion passive devices and dump them out of the
> airlock. Unless you can intercept the freighter before it jettisons its
> load you don't have a prayer. Once they are launched there isn't any way
> to stop them.
A few billion passive devices? You mean rocks? If the enemy are on an
Earthlike planet, the only thing they need to do is put out a press
release letting everyone know when to step outdoors with a can of beer
and watch the pretty fireworks display as the rocks burn up in the
atmosphere.
> I don't think that's a plausible scenario. The Martians might launch a
> chunk of Deimos but would set off demolition charges as soon as it is on
> its final trajectory. Not only does that kill Earth
Given that Earth's been hit by things the size of _intact_ Deimos plenty
of times before, that means either you're wrong or any people you happen
to meet from time to time are figments of a deranged imagination. Me,
I'm betting on the first option.
> but it also makes it
> more difficult for Earth to counterattack, as the spaceships will have
> to avoid the meteor swarm between the planets.
Space is very very big. I mean you might think it's a long way down the
road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.
> Of course Earth could
> break loose a chunk of the moon and kick that into a different orbit to
> land on Mars.
Then again they could build a huge methane-filled rubber cow and make it
fart on Mars. The two plans are about equally useful.
> In practise I think it's more likely that both Mars and Earth would
> choose asteroids as weapons.
Asteroids in interplanetary warfare are like steam rollers in hand to
hand combat: yes, they can do horrendous damage if they hit, but they're
so slow and clumsy that they're not really likely to be useful unless
the target is already down for the count, in which case you don't really
need them.
--
"Always look on the bright side of life."
To reply by email, replace no.spam with my last name.
Bernard Peek
<russell...@gmail.com> writes
>Bernard Peek wrote:
>> Even an ecology under domes is a planetary ecology and easy to destroy.
>
>Such claims are all the better for proof.
You expect a dome that's strong enough to withstand bombardment from
space?
>
>> No. I wasn't considering using guided munitions. Just load up a
>>freighter with a few billion passive devices and dump them out of the
>>airlock. Unless you can intercept the freighter before it jettisons
>>its load you don't have a prayer. Once they are launched there isn't
>>any way to stop them.
>
>A few billion passive devices? You mean rocks? If the enemy are on an
>Earthlike planet, the only thing they need to do is put out a press
>release letting everyone know when to step outdoors with a can of beer
>and watch the pretty fireworks display as the rocks burn up in the
>atmosphere.
Streamlined heat-resistant rocks. With drag chutes if necessary. You
want them good and hot when they land. For earth the targets would be
the north and south temperate belts so an incendiary attack at midsummer
would be best. That takes care of USA, Russia and China and any future
southern superpower six months later.
>
>> but it also makes it more difficult for Earth to counterattack, as
>>the spaceships will have to avoid the meteor swarm between the planets.
>
>Space is very very big. I mean you might think it's a long way down the
>road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.
Yes, but a planetoid makes lots and lots of lumps. Statistically if you
launched an attack using manned rockets you would have to plan on losing
a percentage. Some would get through though. Choosing a different route
would help. Of course if you use chemical rockets you are committed to a
certain route quite early, and that makes it relatively easy to launch a
freighter full of gravel on an intercept course.
>
>> Of course Earth could break loose a chunk of the moon and kick that
>>into a different orbit to land on Mars.
>
>Then again they could build a huge methane-filled rubber cow and make
>it fart on Mars. The two plans are about equally useful.
Yes. That's why I didn't think it would be a viable option.
>
>> In practise I think it's more likely that both Mars and Earth would
>>choose asteroids as weapons.
>
>Asteroids in interplanetary warfare are like steam rollers in hand to
>hand combat: yes, they can do horrendous damage if they hit, but
>they're so slow and clumsy that they're not really likely to be useful
>unless the target is already down for the count, in which case you
>don't really need them.
Slow and clumsy is fine. The problem is that both sides have access to
slow, clumsy but very effective weapons. So both sides can launch an
attack that's guaranteed to eliminate their opponent, but neither side
can put up a credible defence. So both attacks are likely to succeed.
Bernard Peek
<schi...@spock.usc.edu> writes
>Not necessarily. Launching kinetic weapons capable of destroying a
>planetary ecology, is in fact quite difficult. It is easy to concieve
>of interplanetary civilizations large enough to engage in organized
>warfare, but not capable of projects quite that ambitious.
>
>More to the point...
>
>
>>It might take months or years to arrive but there's essentially nothing
>>that can be done about it once launched.
>
>...not even close. The same technology that can be used to launch a
>kinetic energy WMD, can be used to divert one. And the latter task is
>fundamentally easier - the attacker has to deliver the weapon's mass
>all the way from where it is, to where the target is. The defender
>only needs to divert the incoming mass a little bit, one planetary
>radius or so.
That's certainly possible if you can get there fast enough to apply
delta V early enough. You could do that if you had a patrol near the
enemy planet and their launch point. That's a scenario that I hadn't
thought of. Essentially the war might consist of trying to eliminate the
opponents capability to deliver a kinetic weapon. I suspect that it's
possible if you start early enough. But if both sides are evenly matched
it's conceivable that both would erode each other's defences before
launching a successful attack.
>
>
>>Most SF that I've read handwaves this away by assuming some sort of
>>gentleman's agreement. In reality both sides are likely to launch an
>>attack then sit back and wait to die.
>
>In reality, both sides are likely to do everything they can to frustrate
>each other's attack plans. Both with classic defenses, and with the
>good-offense style.
>
>
>I think you're making the classic unstoppable-weapon mistake: thinking
>up (or reading about) an idea for a new superweapon, then matching it
>against *existing* defenses.
I'm assuming that others have already done the research. The hard SF
writers have evaded the issue, so I'm assuming that they have already
decided that there's no defence. But it is true that I've been thinking
of relatively near-future scenarios where the available technology is
comparable to what we have now. Given sufficiently advanced technology
you could just move the target out of the path of the attack.
Russell Wallace
> You expect a dome that's strong enough to withstand bombardment from space?
I expect a few small holes in a dome will be easy to repair.
> Streamlined heat-resistant rocks. With drag chutes if necessary. You
> want them good and hot when they land. For earth the targets would be
> the north and south temperate belts so an incendiary attack at midsummer
> would be best. That takes care of USA, Russia and China and any future
> southern superpower six months later.
Rocks with drag chutes. How on earth is that going to do any significant
damage, let alone eliminate the ability of a major industrial nation to
wage war?
> Yes, but a planetoid makes lots and lots of lumps. Statistically if you
> launched an attack using manned rockets you would have to plan on losing
> a percentage. Some would get through though. Choosing a different route
> would help.
Well, not choosing a route that involves a collision course with a known
obstacle is helpful for most modes of transport, not just spaceships :)
> Of course if you use chemical rockets you are committed to a
> certain route quite early, and that makes it relatively easy to launch a
> freighter full of gravel on an intercept course.
If you haven't got anything more advanced than chemical rockets, there
isn't going to be an outpost on Mars, let alone a colony capable of
waging interplanetary war.
> Slow and clumsy is fine. The problem is that both sides have access to
> slow, clumsy but very effective weapons. So both sides can launch an
> attack that's guaranteed to eliminate their opponent, but neither side
> can put up a credible defence. So both attacks are likely to succeed.
Deflecting an asteroid is straightforward even with today's technology,
let alone the far more advanced technology that a spacefaring
civilization would have to have.
Bryan Derksen
<russell...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Bernard Peek wrote:
>> You expect a dome that's strong enough to withstand bombardment from space?
>
>I expect a few small holes in a dome will be easy to repair.
Also, there will be many domes. A big rock might destroy the ones it
hits directly, and the ejecta could cause patching problems for the
nearby ones, but there will be no "global" climate effects.
>> Yes, but a planetoid makes lots and lots of lumps. Statistically if you
>> launched an attack using manned rockets you would have to plan on losing
>> a percentage. Some would get through though. Choosing a different route
>> would help.
>
>Well, not choosing a route that involves a collision course with a known
>obstacle is helpful for most modes of transport, not just spaceships :)
It will help significantly that the orbital path leading from Mars to
Earth is nothing at all like the orbital path leading from Earth to
Mars - even if you had no idea the rocks were coming you'd never
intersect them in transit.
Bernard Peek
<russell...@gmail.com> writes
>Bernard Peek wrote:
>> You expect a dome that's strong enough to withstand bombardment from space?
>
>I expect a few small holes in a dome will be easy to repair.
>
>> Streamlined heat-resistant rocks. With drag chutes if necessary. You
>>want them good and hot when they land. For earth the targets would be
>>the north and south temperate belts so an incendiary attack at
>>midsummer would be best. That takes care of USA, Russia and China and
>>any future southern superpower six months later.
>
>Rocks with drag chutes. How on earth is that going to do any
>significant damage, let alone eliminate the ability of a major
>industrial nation to wage war?
Well, scratch all of the oil refineries, most of the factories,
hospitals and any other big delicate targets. There would be firestorms
in all of the cities or anywhere else with lots of flammable materials,
like prairies. So add the complete loss of a season's crops and any
reserves in the cities.
>
>> Yes, but a planetoid makes lots and lots of lumps. Statistically if
>>you launched an attack using manned rockets you would have to plan on
>>losing a percentage. Some would get through though. Choosing a
>>different route would help.
>
>Well, not choosing a route that involves a collision course with a
>known obstacle is helpful for most modes of transport, not just
>spaceships :)
>
>> Of course if you use chemical rockets you are committed to a certain
>>route quite early, and that makes it relatively easy to launch a
>>freighter full of gravel on an intercept course.
>
>If you haven't got anything more advanced than chemical rockets, there
>isn't going to be an outpost on Mars, let alone a colony capable of
>waging interplanetary war.
No, a mars colony is feasible with just chemical rockets. Nuclear
rockets possibly let you get from A to B faster, using continuous
thrust. But without them transit times are likely to be measured in
weeks or months. An asteroid may be travelling for a month before you
get within interception range. Add nuclear rockets to the scenario then
you get shorter timescales but no real change in the tactics. Your big
dumb rock is just bigger and moving faster under continuous
acceleration, which will at least partially neutralise the advantage of
being able to accelerate towards it faster. I would set off the
demolition charge some time before the interceptors reach it, and
possibly throw multiple rocks to split the defences.
>
>> Slow and clumsy is fine. The problem is that both sides have access
>>to slow, clumsy but very effective weapons. So both sides can launch
>>an attack that's guaranteed to eliminate their opponent, but neither
>>side can put up a credible defence. So both attacks are likely to succeed.
>
>Deflecting an asteroid is straightforward even with today's technology,
>let alone the far more advanced technology that a spacefaring
>civilization would have to have.
Deflecting one asteroid is easy, but as I mentioned there isn't going to
be one. I would expect a large mass broken into lots of pieces.
Launching a minefield ahead of the main weapon will take care of a lot
of the defences. If the weapon is small enough to be deflected by a
single explosion, or even a phased array of explosions, then it's
steerable. That could be used to reverse any deflection or possibly
change the timing of the attack so the defenders waste delta V on
changing course a month after launch.
As has been said, this is a scenario based on today's unstoppable
weapon. Some new technology or military tactic could make the scenario
obsolete. But I think it's the most likely given the state of the art
today. It's a MAD scenario.
John Schilling
>In message <dq969...@drn.newsguy.com>, John Schilling
><schi...@spock.usc.edu> writes
>>Not necessarily. Launching kinetic weapons capable of destroying a
>>planetary ecology, is in fact quite difficult. It is easy to concieve
>>of interplanetary civilizations large enough to engage in organized
>>warfare, but not capable of projects quite that ambitious.
>>More to the point...
>>>It might take months or years to arrive but there's essentially nothing
>>>that can be done about it once launched.
>>...not even close. The same technology that can be used to launch a
>>kinetic energy WMD, can be used to divert one. And the latter task is
>>fundamentally easier - the attacker has to deliver the weapon's mass
>>all the way from where it is, to where the target is. The defender
>>only needs to divert the incoming mass a little bit, one planetary
>>radius or so.
>That's certainly possible if you can get there fast enough to apply
>delta V early enough. You could do that if you had a patrol near the
>enemy planet and their launch point. That's a scenario that I hadn't
>thought of. Essentially the war might consist of trying to eliminate the
>opponents capability to deliver a kinetic weapon. I suspect that it's
>possible if you start early enough. But if both sides are evenly matched
>it's conceivable that both would erode each other's defences before
>launching a successful attack.
If both sides are evenly matched, remotely competent, and more interested
in self-preservation than destruction, very few attacks will get through.
The defender has all the leverage here. Launching a projectile to attack
the Earth, for example, requires ~100 m/s of delta-V even if you have an
ideally sited near-Earth asteroid as your weapons platform and are willing
to wait years for a launch opportunity and a year beyond that for the
projectile to strike. Deflecting such a projectile, requires only 10 m/s
of delta-V even if you wait until ten days before impact.
The defender doesn't have to penetrate deep into the attacker's space to
prevent the launch. The attacker has to escort the projectile deep into
the defender's space to prevent it from being deflected, *and* guard
against pre-emptive stikes on his launch facilities. The defender's
job is easier.
>>>Most SF that I've read handwaves this away by assuming some sort of
>>>gentleman's agreement. In reality both sides are likely to launch an
>>>attack then sit back and wait to die.
>>In reality, both sides are likely to do everything they can to frustrate
>>each other's attack plans. Both with classic defenses, and with the
>>good-offense style.
>>I think you're making the classic unstoppable-weapon mistake: thinking
>>up (or reading about) an idea for a new superweapon, then matching it
>>against *existing* defenses.
>I'm assuming that others have already done the research. The hard SF
>writers have evaded the issue, so I'm assuming that they have already
>decided that there's no defence. But it is true that I've been thinking
>of relatively near-future scenarios where the available technology is
>comparable to what we have now.
So are most of the other hard-SF writers. They aren't evading the issue,
they simply aren't reaching it. Most of hard-SF is about first-order
consequences, about "what directly results from introducing New Idea X
into the status quo/consensual SF future?", and most of the second-order
speculation is fairly narrow and limited to whatever struck the author's
fancy.
It's a mistake to assume that others have already done the research,
unless perhaps the "others" you are thinking of are the USAF Space
Command, in which case they haven't published the research. Science
fiction will get around to it eventually, but probably not until the
consensual SF future includes ubiquitous interplanetary kinetic energy
weapons for authors to think about defenses as a first-order New Idea.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
James Nicoll
John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>
[kinetic weapons but this is actually more general]
>So are most of the other hard-SF writers. They aren't evading the issue,
>they simply aren't reaching it. Most of hard-SF is about first-order
>consequences, about "what directly results from introducing New Idea X
>into the status quo/consensual SF future?", and most of the second-order
>speculation is fairly narrow and limited to whatever struck the author's
>fancy.
It's probably useful to bear in mind that the writers are not
being paid to do a comprehensive study of the fields that they use but
to produce interesting stories (which sometimes require fudging the
known facs a bit). Until some editor asks for ON INTERPLANETARY
WARFARE, it ain't getting written [1].
>It's a mistake to assume that others have already done the research,
>unless perhaps the "others" you are thinking of are the USAF Space
>Command, in which case they haven't published the research. Science
>fiction will get around to it eventually, but probably not until the
>consensual SF future includes ubiquitous interplanetary kinetic energy
>weapons for authors to think about defenses as a first-order New Idea.
>
Come to think of it, how many hard SF writers _are_ there and
what fraction have the right tools to look at this question? And to make
it worse, there's a healthy supply of sciences and related topics for
them to think about in terms of using them in SF, meaning even less brain
time per subject.
1: Well, or until a writer gets an attack of the poppy seeds.
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
Eivind Kjorstad
> Russell Wallace wrote:
>>Rocks with drag chutes. How on earth is that going to do any
>>significant damage, let alone eliminate the ability of a major
>>industrial nation to wage war?
> Well, scratch all of the oil refineries, most of the factories,
> hospitals and any other big delicate targets. There would be
> firestorms in all of the cities or anywhere else with lots of
> flammable materials, like prairies. So add the complete loss of a
> season's crops and any reserves in the cities.
You don't seem to have thougth about this very much. Small rocks coming
in from space don't work like that.
Either they move very fast, have a lot of kinetic energy and basically
explode on impact with the atmosphere.
OR they move slowly enough to brake to speeds they can survive
penetrating the atmosphere at, in this case they do about as much
damage as any other rock dropped from a few km up, they'll land at
terminal velocity, more or less, which is determined by their air-drag
and their mass. In this case they will *not* be thousands of degrees
hot when they land, nor will they do nuclear amounts of damage.
Eivind Kjørstad
Eivind Kjorstad
> That's certainly possible if you can get there fast enough to apply
> delta V early enough.
You don't need to apply much of anything. A kinetic weapon traveling at
a significant fraction of C will be turned into a plasma by hitting
anything larger than a grain of dust.
Sure, the plasma will still have pretty much the original course, but
it'll also be dispersing. You don't need very long for a cloud of
plasma to spread out over a radius larger than the diameter of the
target, at which point the weapons starts delivering less energy,
shortly thereafter the weapon is irrelevant.
Even if the explosion resulting from the vehicle intercepting a 0.1g of
dust is only giving the plasma a velosity of say on the average 10km/s,
it still takes only 10 *minutes* until a significant portion of the
plasma starts missing earth, if you hit the vehicle 1 hour before
impact with such a grain of dust, then about 2% will still hit earth, 2
hours before impact and it's down in the noise.
Eivind Kjørstad
James Nicoll
>Bernard Peek wrote:
>
>> That's certainly possible if you can get there fast enough to apply
>> delta V early enough.
>
>You don't need to apply much of anything. A kinetic weapon traveling at
>a significant fraction of C will be turned into a plasma by hitting
>anything larger than a grain of dust.
>
thought we were puttering around with regular interplanetary speeds.
Mind you, one of the proposed methods for dealing with regular
old asteroids on collision courses with Earth is similar to what you
suggest: hit them with a passive object and let the resulting plasma
alter the rock's course.
One interesting calulation to make in these discussions is
to see what the kinetic energy per kilogram is wrt standard explosives.
A 30 km/s impact yields about 450 MJ/kg, which _is_ more than TNT's*
4 MJ/kg but much less than fission's 4000 MJ/kg or fusion's 400 GJ/kg.
Gotta ask if the point is to do at least one K/T impactor's worth of
damage to the Earth, why someone would use a trillion tonnes of rock
over a billion or so tonnes of lithium deuteride.
* That is, the hypothetical TNT H-bomb yields are measured in.
Wayne Throop
: One interesting calulation to make in these discussions is
: to see what the kinetic energy per kilogram is wrt standard explosives.
: A 30 km/s impact yields about 450 MJ/kg, which _is_ more than TNT's*
: 4 MJ/kg but much less than fission's 4000 MJ/kg or fusion's 400 GJ/kg.
: Gotta ask if the point is to do at least one K/T impactor's worth of
: damage to the Earth, why someone would use a trillion tonnes of rock
: over a billion or so tonnes of lithium deuteride.
Um. Because a trillion tons of rock are easier to come by,
especially if you are already in the asteroid belt? And the
chances of a fizzle are much less.
And anyways, who could have predicted that playing with
a trillion tons of rock could lead to tragedy?
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Derek Lyons
In other words, no, you haven't.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Derek Lyons
>As to "false statements", stealth aircraft do carry ECM. There may be a
>reason.
As a last ditch defense - not for normal usage. The minute you light
off ECM, you are no longer stealthy.
m-cb...@columbus.rr.com
nasty fight with the majority of the planet population moving
underground as soon as possible. Given enough energy the hydroponics
can keep running, so the surface isnt that important and no matter how
good your armor or weapons(assuming no planetbusters), nothing compares
to a few billon tons of rock.
As far as kinetic weapons go I imagine not huge chunks of moon but
rather basketball sized ceramic balls with enough iron in them to be
magnetic. Fired at a few thousand rounds a miniute for as long as you
can keep ammo in them. Unguided after firing, nearly impossible to
detect let alone intercept, and accelerated to a far higher speed than
that chuck of moon. Also far easier to construct and more surviable
than a single large installation. Targeting would be trying to get the
next cloud in approximatly the same place as the first with the enemy
piping dirt, rock and cement into the area as fast as possible. All the
while hoping the you picked the right spot above a critial facility.
Space combat would be rare and mostly about intercepting landing
parties since surface defenses wont last long and the barrel of the
mass drivers would be tempting targets. Large fleets of small vessels
so as not to present a target for that cloud of projecties. Stealth of
primary importance since missile tech and small mass drivers can punch
though anything likley to be invented soon. Also small vessels have
the ability to turn and dodge a lot faster on the same thrust. Energy
weapons for the near term would be too energy hunger to bother with on
small vessels. Think dart like craft, proably unmanned, trying to get
space superiourity long enough to keep the enemy fleet from firing down
on the landing craft(scorched earth but given the likley condidtion of
that earth not to big an issue).
Piracy would be a few dozen manned craft trying to get past the drones
the merchant just launched, then ordering a merchant to jetson cargo.
Only the desperate would even consider it. No boarding parties unless
it is done in complete stealth.
Ground combat would be about throwing enough at hardened underground
installations to pentrate and get to the plunder. Drones fighting
automated bunkers.
No sane government would even consider total war against another of
nearly equal power. Anyone that did would be facing rebellion almost
immediately.
Ghostwriter
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>>Well, we can always use "rely" as a weasel word. Ships never have
>>been able to rely solely on armor. or mobility. or arms.
>
>In other words, no, you haven't.
But those aren't my words, nor what I said.
John Schilling
m-cb...@columbus.rr.com says...
>
>Given that both sizes have huge stores of energy and materials, a long
>nasty fight with the majority of the planet population moving
>underground as soon as possible. Given enough energy the hydroponics
>can keep running, so the surface isnt that important and no matter how
>good your armor or weapons(assuming no planetbusters), nothing compares
>to a few billon tons of rock.
>As far as kinetic weapons go I imagine not huge chunks of moon but
>rather basketball sized ceramic balls with enough iron in them to be
>magnetic.
That doesn't actually help. What you want is for there to be enough
metal in them to be conductive. Copper or silver would be best, aluminum
OK in combination with something dense for the actual "destroy the enemy"
part, and iron suboptimal for several reasons. But it is cheap.
>Fired at a few thousand rounds a miniute for as long as you can keep ammo
>in them.
You don't think keeping *power* to them will be the bigger problem? Do
the math. You're talking power requirements that would black out the
entire North American grid, to run one weapon. Ammunition is not going
to be your limiting factor.
>Unguided after firing, nearly impossible to detect
The *launcher* is going to be trivial to detect. That much power in
one place, might as well light a beacon.
And once you know where the launcher is, you can just paint it with a
stream of focused lidar pulses, letting you know what is coming out the
muzzle. Or you can note that there is a limited set of trajectories for
an unguided projectile from that launcher to your high-value targets, and
sweep that trajectory space with your lidar.
>let alone intercept,
They're unguided. So they can't evade. And they're fast. So a pellet of
buckshot in their path will obliterate them. Once you've got three lidar
pulses on the same bogey, a glorified shotgun under computer control can
swat them out of the sky.
>and accelerated to a far higher speed than that chuck of moon.
It would help if you were to put a number on that "far higher speed". I'm
guessing something around 30 km/s, but feel free to pin it down for us.
>Also far easier to construct and more surviable than a single large
>installation.
The launcher, with its terawatt or so of power generation, electronics,
radiators, and all the rest, *is* a single large installation. If you're
going to handwave up a dozen of them, you have to allow for similar levels
of defensive effort by the targets - that's a *lot* of lidars and shotguns.
Or else this is just another version of My Ultimate Superweapon vs. 20th
Century Earth, or the slightly less boring My Ultimate Superweapon vs. The
Consensus SFnal Future.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
ghostwriter
production of a stupidly large scale. I had overlooked the fact that
energy increases with the square of the velocity.
Looking at the math a 10kg weight traveling at 30km/s has a kinetic
energy of 4.5 Gj.
That does suggest an interesting possiblity, use a small engine and
capacitors, and build them in massive quanity. A 100KW output builds
up 4.5Gj in about 12hours. Dig a hole in the ground and mount the tube
to be able to skew in a limited arc. Put them into space with a
nuclear battery and limited ammo supply. The capacitors would have to
be far better than we currently have but dont (I think) fall into the
hand-wave catagory. Modern cars carry at least a 100KW power plant.
Make them cheap enough and you could line the landscape with them,
assuming that a perfect shot arrived once a day you could fire
thousands of them at the same time from thousands of different
tragetories and use time on target to deliver massive strikes.
Rapid fire against ship would be possible at much lower energies,
firing once a minute means 6Mj of energy delivered at 1km/s. Or mount a
smaller tube next to the large one(so they can use the same bank of
capasitors) for smaller rounds fired at the same speed but once a
second. Of course you could wire them together thus allowing power to
be shunted from one to another and get a higher rater of fire from
fewer tubes. Or you could wire them to a central power plant to allow
full power shots from individual tubes quickly in an emergency. Its a
matter of what your capacitors can handle.
Incrementally upgradable, extremely surviable, cheap to manufacture,
good balance of strength and weaknesses but do require a better
capacitors than we currently have.
Ghostwriter
Damien Sullivan
>>>Two opposing forces could launch kinetic weapons
>>>capable of destroying a planetary ecology.
>>
>>Error 1--It's entirely plausible that only one or
>>neither side even has a planetary ecology to
>>begin with.
>
>Even an ecology under domes is a planetary ecology and easy to destroy.
Maybe, if you hit the dome. But it's not a planet in a normal sense, e.g.
Earth actually is somewhat vulnerable to A Big Rock, while hitting Mars With
Domes with A Big Rock means maybe a few domes die and the rest turn on their
nuke plants until dust stops blocking the solar panels.
More paranoid lifestyles include the "dome" being a big hole underground, so
the 'roof' is some meters of rock.
Marshall Savage imagined a couple meters of water as shielding, supported by
air pressure; domes still need radiation shielding after all, which probably
means mass to the tune of 5 tons per square meter, which is a lot for your
Little Rocks to punch through.
>No. I wasn't considering using guided munitions. Just load up a
>freighter with a few billion passive devices and dump them out of the
>airlock. Unless you can intercept the freighter before it jettisons its
>load you don't have a prayer. Once they are launched there isn't any way
>to stop them.
Except putting a bunch of other (nearly-)passive devices in their way,
perhaps. If Mars can make a few billion hardened bars, so can Earth.
>I don't think that's a plausible scenario. The Martians might launch a
>chunk of Deimos but would set off demolition charges as soon as it is on
Your scenario seems slippery. Here you say unguided and demolition charges,
from which I infer a big cloud of rubble which will burn up in atsmophere and
which will not be aimed at any target smaller than Earth itself. Elsewhere
you talked about hardened bars, to survive re-entry, but that'll take much
more work.
>In practise I think it's more likely that both Mars and Earth would
>choose asteroids as weapons. There are probably some available that
If one anticipated asteroids being the Killer Weapons of the next war, it
might make sense to prevent the opposition from getting control of the
asteroids, leading to a ship-and-missile based war beforehand.
-xx- Damien X-)
Damien Sullivan
>I'm new here, but if I may....
Welcome. Nice first post.
>And for the sake of the discussion, let's not consider legality of
>weapons or transportation methods, only possibility and feasibility.
There is one thing which needs to be considered. If easy Doomsday Weapons are
as easy as some posters imagine, why would independent polities have been
allowed to form in the first place? At the very least non-proliferation
treaties and arms inspections would seem to be called for, if not maintenance
of forward bases by Earth.
The latter, and mutiny of same, might give you a plausible way of
getting hostile advanced weaponry out there. But I think something like
Bernard's implied sovereign Mars roughly equal to Earth, getting into a war,
with killer asteroids, begs a question of how things were allowed by Earth to
get to such a stage.
Which prompts me to the next issue: a relatively low probability of Earth
being politically unified. (I liked how Bujold had it still fragmented, 1000
years later...) So it's not Mars vs. Earth but some polities on Mars vs. some
polities on Earth. Of course, if Mars is slinging asteroids around the Earth
powers will probably ally for a while. But having allies, trade partners, or
cultural ties on Earth will inhibit the doomsday options of the Mars-based
military.
>So, for the sake of argument, two opposing forces hold sizeable
>colonies on Mars and the Moon, respectively. Their earthbound homes go
>to War, and here we have the roots of our discussion.
Oh, hey, on more careful re-reading I see you'd addressed my points,
apparently. Nations on Earth, different colonies, going to war because the
motherlands were... good work.
>Personally, I think the most likely form of interplanetary travel will
>be with nuclear pulse engines, and warfare will be waged
Maybe. I used to be an Orion fan but it ran into lots of skepticism here.
Nuclear thermal seems like a more conservative bet, though it doesn't get you
the fusion boost. Though it might get you some fusion delta-vees if you can
figure out a lightweight way of using fission power to drive fusion
explosions. Not getting energy from the fusion, but getting energy to the
reaction mass. Anyway.
>craft for agressive purposes, that computer controlled drones will do
>the fighting for us. but at that point, why bother? Then it's a
>numbers game, a war of attrition; whoever runs out of supplies first
>would be doomed.
Why bother fighting with human crews? There's still judgement of where to
send resources, and logistics, and what to have built. And the school of
thought that wars are won less through brilliant strategy, tactics, or courage
than through making fewer mistakes (and being able to feed the troops.) Space
warfare as chess, or Go.
>Also, it seems, within the confines of the premise I set up (two
>opposing nations with extraterrestrial colonies) that the colonies
>would never go to war with one another, due to the extremely fragile
>nature of their own existence.
Fragility is relative. The chance of being holed by a sizable rock naturally
is really low, but human psychology being what it is habitats are likely to
have been built defensively anyway, e.g. compartmentalization and rapid
repair. They won't need shielding specifically because radiation shielding
already requires them to have about 5 tons of mass per square meter of
surface. They're already pretty resistant to rubble being thrown at them at
interplanetary speeds. Solar panels and farm bubbles might be more
vulnerable, but actually the one big weakness is probably the radiators,
unless the habitat low-density enough to radiate naturally, in which case your
target is a cylinder with a surface of a few meters of rock, metal, water, or
ice, plus some solar panels, for which there may be spares or a nuclear
internal backup.
I'm not sure how nukes at various distances compare to big solar flares in
terms of radiation, but I could imagine anything short of a direct contact hit
being ignored. Someone here should have a better idea.
"Domes" aren't much different than habitats, except with more annoying
gravity; they still need a few tons between their insides and outsides unless
you're having people flee for radiation shelters in bad weather for their
entire lives.
Larger 30km/s weapons make better weapons, but also fewer, expensive, and
bigger targets for countermeasures to hit.
Stealth: what's the likely cost of an automated telescope for in-system use?
What's the cost of delivering one one to some deep space orbit, given that
colonies are possible? I submit that it may be easily affordable to watch,
24/7, every asteroid, habitat, colony, and ship ever launched, from multiple
angles. No sneaking around or disguising yourself as anything; the only
stealthy operations will be those underground or behind barriers. No mobile
stealth, period. Solar system as fishbowl.
After all, we don't need spy satellite class things to track a ship or travel
to/from/by an asteroid, just an infrared/optical/radio combo (pickign up
reflections from radar beacons.) The spy satellites can check in less
frequently.
Sensors may be dazzleable but that's a Hostile Act, and backups will be up
soon, along with military levels. And small passive sensors are probably one
of the few things which *are* somewhat stealthy, at least if they don't have
to use radio to report what they see. (Asteroid watchers don't have to report
in much, just squawk at unexpected behavior.)
Oh, and the heat sink advantage of large masses, e.g. a laser carrier on
Earth's oceans (or a submersible version for stealth and shielding) may have
been badly underestimated.
So that's my contribution; I've got nothing to add about lasers and such. But
if weapons are Really Deadly then sovereignty is likely to be compromised or
intermingled from the beginning; habitats aren't that fragile, precisely
because space is so hostile; any motions will be watched by Jane's Defense on
up; and if you do imagine dueling ships or battlestations, ask who will boil
themselves alive first.
-xx- Damien X-)
nobody
around, here are some concepts to consider.
A big bottleneck for what can be done is all the parts that make up and
relate to logistics, even assuming nearly handwaving amounts of
resources and short of "just a matter of engineering" amounts of
technology capability. This includes the size of the "fuel tanks" (this
includes hypothetical super-capacitors), the resources/man-power to
maintain and repair everything (including megastructures and
mega-arrays) for anything that is expected to last more than a year (or
even far less depending on its design requirements), warehousing/storage
of materials/parts/ammo/fuel, etc. Then there is all the waste being
produced (materials and waste heat) that could serve as trails and
indications of whats going on and where for those who are quietly
watching for such things for future war plans and where the critical
nodes are to hit in the event of war. Along with logistics is the
economies, or how is the economy going to support all this as even
"turning on the printing presses" for making money requires some
attention to how you are budgeting all this (not to mention the
resulting economic meltdown if you go too far).
There will also be likely considerable use of AIs involved, though how
they will actually be used will depend on the assumed technologies (also
again limited by logistics and similar considerations). While AIs can
potentially do a lot, even they have the above limits unless you have
the equivalent of perpetual-motion engines and matter-energy converters.
ghostwriter
who said that).
I was assuming squad sized groups maintaining and potentially firing
small mass drivers with fuel, ammo, food, materials, etc being
delivered on a 2-3 month basis by way of tunnels. Underground wiring
allowing the individual power supplies to assit each other. Hard wire
communications as a backup system to wireless.
I crunched some numbers on what a modern high voltage capacitors can
handle, and assumed that level of power density could be maintained (I
dont know enough about capacitor engineering to know if that is
reasonable). Based on that a 4.5GJ mass driver would be about 100m^3
in size. Only about 10% of the energy can be delivered to a projectile
using current day mass drivers, assuming that to be true at the larger
size the engine would have to be 500KW to allow for one shot a day.
500KW is the size of a semi-trucks engine, make it geothermal if
possible.
I imagine a roll processing system with four offset layers, conductor,
insulation, conductor, insulation. All layers bonded with a high
dielectric constant adhesive and rolled at high pressure. Install a
flexible radiator in the roll if needed for heat movement.
In the center of the roll would be the space for the coils. Make the
rolls 10meters tall and 2meters across, cap both ends with connectors
and you can assemble(or repair) the mass driver like dropping batteries
into a flashlight. 10 rolls makes a 4.5Gj gun, 1 roll makes an antiship
gun, remove damaged rolls and the gun is still functional at reduced
output. Water jacket the finished structure to allow the tube to skew
while creating a heat sink for the gun and the engine.
Ghostwriter
David M. Palmer
ghostwriter <ghostw...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
> I crunched some numbers on what a modern high voltage capacitors can
> handle, and assumed that level of power density could be maintained (I
> dont know enough about capacitor engineering to know if that is
> reasonable). Based on that a 4.5GJ mass driver would be about 100m^3
> in size.
For people who haven't been following what 'modern capacitor' means as
of the last year or so, you can get 2600 Farad 2.7V capacitors
(giving ~9 kJ) that weigh less than half a kg now.
And no, that is not a typo:
http://www.maxwell.com/ultracapacitors/products/MC2600.html
So half a million of those will give you 4.5 GJ in 250 Tonnes. The
density is a bit over 1 which is probably about about 200 m^3, so your
numbers check out. I don't think they make them as
conductor-insulator-conductor-insulator jelly rolls though.
--
David M. Palmer dmpa...@email.com (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)
Bill Gray
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 05:38:51 GMT, fair...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>My point is that since WWII aircraft and naval ships don't rely on
>>>>armor. They rely on stealth and the ability to destroy an attacker.
>>>
>>>You haven't actually studied any aircraft or naval ships designed
>>>after WWII have you?
>>
>>Well, we can always use "rely" as a weasel word. Ships never have
>>been able to rely solely on armor. or mobility. or arms.
>
>
> In other words, no, you haven't.
>
> D.
You're an idiot.
BDH
distributing the load, and power switching is the bigger problem
anyway. Mass drivers are only effective in a bullshit storm attack.
bombardmentforce
>>be with nuclear pulse engines, and warfare will be waged
>Maybe. I used to be an Orion fan but it ran into lots of skepticism here.
Not to worry, most of the Orion skeptics you'll find are either
confused, commie/green or uninformed...
http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2005/10/index-to-problems-with-pos.html
Jim Davis
> Not to worry, most of the Orion skeptics you'll find are either
> confused, commie/green or uninformed...
<chuckle>
On the other hand, most of the Orion enthusiasts are ashamed to post
under their own names.
Jim Davis
bombardmentforce
Is it more honorable to seek fame, or to act to advance Manifest
Destiny?
Publius
ianpa...@gmail.com
here. The real future of space exploration lies with the self
replicating robot or Von Neumann machine.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.ai.nat-lang/browse_frm/thread/a068a4ed46db1975
Do we need new Physics (eg. warp drive) No. In fact if you think about
it the failure to make one would mean new science! You see if would
mean that the origin of life was irreducibly complex.
In fact analysis shows that if we could produce a robot that understood
CAD, could assemble flatpacks and be able to perform generalized
positioning based on CAD we would have a VN machine. This is because
everything necessary for the gathering of materials, furnaces etc. are
presentable in CAD form.
My belief is that interstellar travel will be based on phased laser
arrays focussing on dielectric sails and interplanetary travel will be
based on lasers focussing onto engines.
The future of war? If conflict goes on into the indefinite future, the
weapons of choice will be based on this sort of technology.
There is one point here that can be made about Aurora. NASA advertised
the Shuttle as being the era of CHEAP spaceflight and it turned out
twice as expensive (per Kg) as Ariane.
Question : Do you make expenible launch vehicles a little bit cheaper,
use mass production technology or do you go for a hypersonic
aircraft/Shuttle?
The irony is that if you went down the VN route you could build
expendible rockets cheaply and (in effect) make Aurora obsolete!
Jim Davis
> Is it more honorable to seek fame, or to act to advance Manifest
> Destiny?
<lol>
Are these mutually exclusive alternatives?
Do you think your cause might suffer if you were associated with it
under your own name?
Or perhaps your reputation would suffer if associated with your
cause?
Jim Davis
ianpa...@gmail.com
bombardmentforce
Do you know who Publius was?
Do you know who Mr. X was?
_policy_ Discussion requires us to each bring some knowlege of History,
present yours.
Jim Davis
> Do you know who Publius was?
>
> Do you know who Mr. X was?
lol!!
Do you *really* think that "bombardmentforce" ranks right up
there with "Publius"?
Do you really think the "spacebombardment blog" deserves to be as
widely read as the Federalist Papers?
Do you really think that you're worthy to be grouped with
Hamilton, Madison, and Jay?
> _policy_ Discussion requires us to each bring some knowlege of
> History, present yours.
Here's a sample of your knowledge of "history":
"Navigator's Log USS Taylor
Set target
Navigator's log 12/18/2041 2:00 AM Velocity 0 c towards target
star. Fuel burn in previous hour 0.00 Gigatons. Gross mass
400,000 tons
Navigator's log 12/18/2041 3:00 AM Velocity 0.00012 c towards
target star. Fuel burn in previous hour 4.76 Gigatons. Gross mass
398,921 tons Mission cumulative fuel cost $449,640,288
etc
etc"
Jim Davis
bombardmentforce
>
A gap in you answer.
>history
Navigator's log ...2041
Do the math; 2006 < 2041.
mike dale allen
things missing are: information, guts, the law of conservation of
momentum, and luck.
First, info: It's all going to be about who is able to gather
information more efficiently, who has the technology, who can
convince who to sabotage what, who can convince whose population to
rally, and who knows where all this is taking place. Defender has the
advantage against falling debris, but I must assume that in the
category of information, Earth, depending on which number conflict this
is, has the advantage, being the mother of Mars and all other space
colonies/planets/asteroid-mines out there.
Second, guts: we have to remember that this is humans fighting humans,
and not all are going to agree, not all are going to be convinced of
the same strategy, and if a war does break out, it will be accompanied
by a historical period of anxiety, destruction, change, etc.
The winner of the war, and the one who will make the other want to
stop fighting first, will be the one who utilizes his information in
the most gutsy and creative way while disguising this information in a
way his enemy doesn't predict. Here Earth must have the advantage,
though the prospect of being weaker does give Mars a boost in both the
creativity and guts departments, which may well insure a victory.
Third, the law of conservation of momentum: anything you shoot off in
space, don't you have to be willing to shoot something else off in a
different direction?; and any large body you use to accelerate any
other large body-won't the larger body show consequences in the
long term.
Only so much can be launched from Earth before the orbit of the
planet is skewed or before the mass is dwindled enough to make Earth
drift out of orbit. And after enough asteroids are whipped around
Jupiter, won't anyone be afraid that Jupiter has recently begun
moving toward the sun?
And any political entity/mining operation/military outpost that
wants to waste trillions of credits on accelerating an asteroid so that
it can be used as one of many devices of warfare, has to be willing to
part with the energy required to accelerate said asteroid. Using up
that much energy may well render said political entity/mining
operation/military outpost inoperable.
Using up too much of Earth's natural momentum would be unwise,
and protecting this momentum must be of utmost importance.
Most likely, Mars would develop a long term advantage in this area
because it may be easier to accelerate objects from Mars toward Earth
than from Earth to Mars, and it may be easier to reach the Kupier belt
from Mars than from Earth, so Mars might develop a monopoly on loose
asteroids, but I doubt it. Most likely, Earth would hold everything,
all mass and energy in the solar system in its iron fist from day one,
and any war will be perceived afterward as the mutual reaction to the
unfortunate extravagance of an individual, rather than as a coalition
of entire planets in warfare against one another.
Fourth, luck. The one who will win will be the one who happens to
develop one of many effective techniques, who happens to disguise the
technique/distract the enemy, and whose technique happens to work. If
both happen to work, if both planets have their atmospheres ripped
away, or are one plagued by the nano-tech robots and the other
surrounded by ionized gas, then they will both lose, but most likely
one will be perceived the controller of the other throughout history,
mostly dictated by a series of chance events.
Raghar
news:1139396630.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> I think both the enthusiasts and the skeptics may be missing
> something here. The real future of space exploration lies with
> the self replicating robot or Von Neumann machine.
>
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.ai.nat-lang/browse_frm/thre
> ad/a068a4ed46db1975
>
These would be even worse news than antrax. It could force the other
civilizations use long range lasers, and FTL technology to blast out
that spore infection before it will get too much serious.
Eric Chomko
: >names
: Is it more honorable to seek fame, or to act to advance Manifest
: Destiny?
Heck, why not both? Do they have to be mutually exclusive? No. Then why
make then so with language?
Might be that your fate is neither...
Eric
: Publius
bombardmentforce
We can't prejudge our fate, even when it is obvious. Current treaties
confine us all to neither owning nor trodding on the Frontier.
I'm betting that we will reclaim our pride, someday, but current trends
show sb.blog losing badly to Wesley Crusher's.
donsto...@hotmail.com
********************
The Global Brain should eliminate it.
Erik Max Francis
Our knowledge of _your_ history is your unending garbage on
rec.arts.sf.science, which is plenty enough to bring to the table to
realize that "discussion" with you is pretty pointless.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
Strange is our situation here upon earth.
-- Albert Einstein
bombardmentforce
>
> _your_ history
Did you like my calculation of ISP for low altitude Orion operations?
15,800 seconds !
http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2005/10/orion-isp-at-low-altitude.html
I can now see the connection between Aldebaran, by Dandridge Cole, and
Orion.
ianpa...@gmail.com
is quite a long one the possibility of alien life and their reaction to
us is discussed. FTL by the way I do not believe to be possible.
If this is so it would mean that our civilization had restricted
possibilities. The question of whether or not ET is likely to be
frightened of us is disacussed.
Incidentally ET would NOT blast out with long range lasers and FTL (if
possible). What would happen is that a CDROM would be handed out
(possibly by an android) at a hacking conference and the Web would
monitor what the human race did. Possibly the Web might even generate
responses of its own. I can see you are human, an alien would have
responded differently.
Incidentally there can never be a 4th July like that shown in the film.
President Houston will simply let them in. In the film "The Bodyguard"
Whitney Houston played the part of a singer who was being protected by
an ex secret service agent. The secret service agent said that she
looked and sang better than the President. Now you get elected by being
ttelegenic and having pots of money to spend on the media. AI would
ensure that its person became president and did what it said.
Incidentally a study of AI indicates that extraterrestrial craft are
impossible as an explanation of UFOs as ET is going to act totally
differently. Military involvement is a certain, hence Why the secrecy?
ET involvement is simply not possible.
Anecdotally I would tend to doubt the presence of ET anywhere. If there
is ET it will be on the Web. No doubt at all about that. In fact all my
postings on AI and also Von Neumann machines have been well received.
The postings that have in fact been ridiculed are those in
rec.aviation.military on aerodynamics. Far less big a deal for ET. My
suspicion is that the Military is working on EXACTLY those lines.
JimboCat
> Only so much can be launched from Earth before the orbit of the
>planet is skewed or before the mass is dwindled enough to make Earth
>drift out of orbit. And after enough asteroids are whipped around
>Jupiter, won't anyone be afraid that Jupiter has recently begun
>moving toward the sun?
[snip]
> Using up too much of Earth's natural momentum would be unwise,
>and protecting this momentum must be of utmost importance.
I'm reminded of "The Martian Way", but mostly of an entry in my .sig
file:
Each launch slows the Earth down slightly, but I haven't yet
heard of hippies standing outside the Kennedy Space Center
with protest signs saying "conserve angular momentum."
- Tom Farr
Well, now we've heard it all!
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"I meant it kept the rain off the face , which umberallas dont
do very well because mainly the rain in the Northern Hemisphere falls
at greater angles the further north you go" -- Habshi, in sci.physics
Raghar
news:1139474253.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> I have in fact thought of this myself. In the referenced thread,
> which is quite a long one the possibility of alien life and
> their reaction to us is discussed. FTL by the way I do not
> believe to be possible.
>
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_fr
> m/thread/83cb28043cc5b2e8/1caa29f1be4ba16c?lnk=st&q=group%3Asci.p
> hysics.relativity+insubject%3Acausation+author%3Aianparker2%40gma
> il.com&rnum=1&hl=en#1caa29f1be4ba16c
>
> If this is so it would mean that our civilization had restricted
> possibilities. The question of whether or not ET is likely to be
> frightened of us is disacussed.
>
I very doubt that any alien civilization would be frightened by
human civilization. Frightened by unability of the human
civilization to develop FTL drive? Possibly. Jokes and talks about
idiocy would be widespread for hundreds of years.
> Incidentally ET would NOT blast out with long range lasers and
> FTL (if possible). What would happen is that a CDROM would be
> handed out (possibly by an android) at a hacking conference and
> the Web would monitor what the human race did. Possibly the Web
> might even generate responses of its own. I can see you are
> human, an alien would have responded differently.
>
> Incidentally a study of AI indicates that extraterrestrial craft
> are impossible as an explanation of UFOs as ET is going to act
> totally differently. Military involvement is a certain, hence
> Why the secrecy? ET involvement is simply not possible.
>
What study of AI? Acidentally you talk with AI expert, and I don't
recall any of that. Not to mention it would need to be not AI
study, but rather study of possible evolution pathes of alien
civilizations with attempts of find plausible models of theirs
behaviour.
> Anecdotally I would tend to doubt the presence of ET anywhere.
> If there is ET it will be on the Web.
Web? Why? It would be uneconomical. You can get far more
information by evesdropping by long range probes, as shown by US
spy attempts, than by abusing something as unreliable as Web.
Actually even 50 kg antimater bomb gift, would be much more
sensible, than mechanism required for this.
> that. In fact all my postings on AI and also Von Neumann
> machines have been well received. The postings that have in fact
> been ridiculed are those in rec.aviation.military on
> aerodynamics. Far less big a deal for ET. My suspicion is that
> the Military is working on EXACTLY those lines.
>
US military is trying to to reduce awsome debt that was created by
Bush.
Russian military is trying to slightly modernize it's hardware and
still have enought money for salaries of its soldiers.
Chinesse militery is trying to on it's own pace modernise, in a way
to don't destroy its economy, or better say don't affect it
negatively. They know if they'd do it slowly but surelly US would
be unimportant, and they try to change it's purelly defensive army
into well around capable army optimalized against US. If Japan
would break from US, US would be second grade country. And they
also work on AA short/long range defense lasers research.
Izrael military is trying to research a cruise missiles launched
from submarine, if it doesn't not already have it.
South Africa is still major power in Africa, however it's less
sharp than it was, and also optimalised on Africa types of
conflicts. It's obvious that black are able to steal as well as
white, and there is majority of blacks, so it's unlikely to produce
something radical.
Brazil is crazy as was shown in it's UFO case, aka hunt for two
midgets. Unsure if it could do anything in near few tens of years.
India is somehow unknown in military, it's only problem is Paki,
and highly unlikely China (they already have nice enough relations,
and no other problems).
Paki was able to produce cheapest nuclear device in the world,
however they are currently working on it's own problems, country
buildin and so on. When they are leaded by military junta they are
nice to it's neighbourds, they just need to stay avay from
democracy, or there might be freedom fighters in unnamed mountains,
and they would be allright.
Iran has it's chit chat with security council and interntational
nuclear control agency, so they don't have time to test anything
large. And previously they worked on stabilising border with
occupated Iraq, and with suppling arms... They have different hobby
now that US is likely to run away with lowered tail. There would be
just a lot of angry people, some non US people don't take violation
of personal freedom lightly.
So it's unlikely that military superpower today working is ETI
related, with possible exception of radar scans, and some minor
work.
I don't have too much detailed info about NASA, and ESA. With
exception that nivelization of sallaries would be nice for
them.with passion.
ianpa...@gmail.com
>human civilization. Frightened by unability of the human
>civilization to develop FTL drive? Possibly. Jokes and talks about
>idiocy would be widespread for hundreds of years.
C'mon make your mind up. If they are not afraid they will take no
action. There are 2 reasons why they might be afraid, just possibly.
1) Al Qaeda has shown that it is possible to threaten an advanced
civilization and military (I will return to this point later) with
asymmmetrical resources.
2) If FTL is NOT possible, then the development of strong AI will act
as a breakthrough point. Within 50 years we would have their
technology. Too short a space of time to mount a sub light expedition.
>What study of AI? Acidentally you talk with AI expert, and I don't
>recall any of that. Not to mention it would need to be not AI
>study, but rather study of possible evolution pathes of alien
>civilizations with attempts of find plausible models of theirs behaviour.
Actually you only need to look at a very superficial level to see that.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.ai.nat-lang/browse_frm/thread/a068a4ed46db1975
Points you to a look at AI in considerable depth.
As far as Evolution is concerned. I see no reason to suppose that
biological evolution and the development of technology would be
significantly different elsewhere. There is a possible alternative
evolutionary path and that is the evolution of collective intelligence
in insect swarms. This is like ants "serving" and creating an Internet.
I admit this is possible but not likely. Insects communicate with
pheremones not by an electronic type messages.
>Web? Why? It would be uneconomical. You can get far more
>information by evesdropping by long range probes, as shown by US
>spy attempts, than by abusing something as unreliable as Web.
>Actually even 50 kg antimater bomb gift, would be much more
>sensible, than mechanism required for this.
No HUMINT as the CIA puts it. The failure of HUMINT is part of the
reason we are in the mess we are in Iraq - more later. The Internet by
the way is extremely reliable. It was designed to survive nuclear war.
Your connection may be dicky. Ocean Store would herald a new world of
redundancy and reliability. Incidentally I could think of far better
things to do with 50kg of antimatter than to drop it. Propulsion
systems for one thing.
>So it's unlikely that military superpower today working is ETI
>related, with possible exception of radar scans, and some minor work.
But very likely they are doing black work. ET was used to cover the
F117 and B2 when they "did not exist".
As far as your remarks on the military are concerned I have a number of
obsevations. It is frequently stated that the military always fights
the last war. Sadaam Hussein was defeated very easily, Iran could be
conquered - also very easily. However the military cannot defeat an
insurgency. This is in part because they are still fighting the cold
war. The military uses of Aurora are very much CW.
Part of the anger I have about alien abduction, UFOs and black flight
stems from the fact that black projects by and large are completely
irrelevant to our real needs. 38% of R&D expenditure goes on them
according to Janes. Black money has no democratic oversight, if the
public had some say it would either say "Lets cut expenditure and try
to balance the books" or "research should go towards low intensity
warfare".