What would real space combat be like

dbgager

Because of the fact space is actually a vacuum what would combat between spaceships actually be like.. The laws and physics of space are very different than what games and movies make you think. a Lot of dog fighting and manouvering is very difficult in space. (directional thrusting is the only way to manouver in space) There is not friction...or air movemnt over control services. Momentum and the fact that once something starts moving in real physics it continues to move untill something stops it..in the case of an atmosphere it is friction or gravity..but these do not exist in space. Space combat would actually be like the game Asteroids and old game by Atari.

Kaalan

I usually tend to think it would be similar to the way it's shown in Babylon 5, the Earthforce Starfury fighters in particular.

Edit:

Example

www.youtube.com/watch

If you watch between 0.22 and 0.28 you can see how the ship spins depending on which of its four thrusters is fired, but still continues moving in the same direction.

cygnetsong

without shields, it would be very long range and very short duration imo... Think of the way fighter planes have evolved.  Modern jet fighters can engage each other (nearly?) over the horizon and (may) never actually see each other.  One missile hit = kill.  Space is even more deadly, distances are longer, and objects are dark, so it would probably be long range missiles vs. anti-missile systems. 

Lasers would probably be most effective (can't dodge/destroy incoming and nearly infinite range).  Plus, no ammo; only solar panels.

If there are shields, who knows? 

Nebless

For not so far into the future 1 example that I always thought was good came from one of the early Stargate Book Series: Rebellion, Resistance etc....

The part I'm thinking of had one of the Pyamids coming to blast earth and all we could put up were our Space shuttles, the Soviets and 1 EU model (I think).  All were backfitted with Nuke missiles and sent out to do battle.

That part of the story covered the problems pretty good; had to think ahead, wanting to turn / reposition required hitting the manuvering jets and they waiting for re-orienatation and then firing the thrusters etc.... While not slow per se, I'd picture it as a slow moving ballet.

In the end we ended up with pretty much 100% casualties since we couldn't move / get out of the way fast enough and the most effective weapon came down to flying one of the shuttles and it's nuke load into the thing in a suicide run.

For alittle farther down the road I think B5 nailed it pretty good with how they handled the EarthForce ships and fighters.

jakin

Can't really have the discussion if one doesn't frame the situation properly.  Is the question assuming the technology of the Star Trek universe, or assuming current day tech, or something in-between?

The tactics and strategy of a battle is almost completely dependent on the platforms that are engaging in the fight - and in this particular case, would also have a great deal to do with what fantasy technological solutions exist that would make combat in space viable. 

SonofSeth

 Actually, from watching Trek I always imagined they fly ships exactly like you fly ships in EVE. Setting power of thrusters, orbit range, afterburners... with addition of attack patterns.

That's also how I imagine real space flight, minimal human input, maximum computer involvement.

 

Also, Mass Effect had an interesting take on Stealth. Space is so big that basically only thing needed is to make your ship immune to enemy sensors, because who would actually look out of the window in a spaceship, and even if they did, you would be in weapons range way sooner than someone would spot you. That's how they got a visible invisible ship.

tman5

Real space combat would be incredibly boring compared to how we've been conditioned to imagine it.  And limited.  Virtually all combat would take place in orbit around planets, asteroids or stations.  There would be no open space combat due to the vast distances and velocities involved.  Natural and artificial orbital paths would be the fields of battle.

 

Combat would be decided more by ECM, ECCM and "stealth" technologies than the actual munitions used.  The winner would usually be he who pulls the trigger first.  There would be little chance to manuever once fired upon.

Harafnir

Hm... Real space combat. I would guess based on a continuation in development of todays weapons... That you would fire a FoF missile on a target you cant even see, from miles and miles away, then wait for it to do its job.

10 seconds later.. their smart missile reaches you.

Nebless

Jakin - Since the OP said REAL space combat I think we're all looking at earth based near term options.

I think 'Shields' would be shooting millions of BB's out ahead of you to form an umbrella to advance behind.  Would also be a great weapon since they'd shred anything they hit.

And Tman nailed it when he said it would all be about location, location, location.  Why fight in the middle of no where?  Not to mention just how hard it would be to find someone.

Taking the 'high ground' would become the thing to do.  Fighting for good orbital spots to launch attacks from would be the thing.

EricDanie

Originally posted by tman5


Real space combat would be incredibly boring compared to how we've been conditioned to imagine it.  And limited.  Virtually all combat would take place in orbit around planets, asteroids or stations.  There would be no open space combat due to the vast distances and velocities involved.  Natural and artificial orbital paths would be the fields of battle.
 
Combat would be decided more by ECM, ECCM and "stealth" technologies than the actual munitions used.  The winner would usually be he who pulls the trigger first.  There would be little chance to manuever once fired upon.

Depends on the "magical" shields, one could even come up with sci-fi technology for explaining why the heck a pressurized ship doesn't go boom after its hull gets a single scratch.

Depends on a lot of stuff, also considering the technology of the IP. We can't really talk about *real* space combat... only imagine and theorize, but you also need to take in account the existence of what we consider to be sci-fi currently, we're still too limited and young =P

thexrated

The closest to a realistic space combat has probably been described in Walter Jon Williams' series called Dread Empire's Fall.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dread_Empire%27s_Fall

Dragim

History channel did a space wars type thing and it wouldn't be like the star wars or star trek space battles we see.

Since light speed travels at, well, the speed of light.  A laser beam would hit whatever it is shot at as soon as it is shot, you wouldn't see much "tracers".  As for the sounds, I don't think there would be much sound either.

And since there is no atmosphere in space, the way things just "fly" about wouldn't be completely accurate.  They would move more in a sharp up, down, left, right motions.  Not fly the way plains fly on earth.

With weapons we have now <Which who knows what we really have technological wise> I don't see space fighting working using guns/bullets.

This is just me speculating, I could and probably am completely wrong.  but then again, look at the movies made back in the day of what the future is "supposed" to look like.  Hell we should have flying cars by now according to some shows/movies.

Who knows what really will be used in the future, we may think lasers and shields, but it could be something completely different.

dbgager

Originally posted by jakin


Can't really have the discussion if one doesn't frame the situation properly.  Is the question assuming the technology of the Star Trek universe, or assuming current day tech, or something in-between?
The tactics and strategy of a battle is almost completely dependent on the platforms that are engaging in the fight - and in this particular case, would also have a great deal to do with what fantasy technological solutions exist that would make combat in space viable. 

 

But the laws of  physics and the universe will not change.

Robsolf

Physically, I think the new Battlestar Galactica had it fairly close.

Tactically, I think it would probably be alot like sub combat; trying to avoid giving off a signature, creating false signatures, while you find ways to take out weapons and propulsion.

Dragim

Originally posted by dbgager

Originally posted by jakin


Can't really have the discussion if one doesn't frame the situation properly.  Is the question assuming the technology of the Star Trek universe, or assuming current day tech, or something in-between?
The tactics and strategy of a battle is almost completely dependent on the platforms that are engaging in the fight - and in this particular case, would also have a great deal to do with what fantasy technological solutions exist that would make combat in space viable. 

 

But the laws of  physics and the universe will not change.

 

But how do we know that what we think we know of physics and the universe is correct to begin with?  and isn't the universe ever changing? constantly expanding?

Dieseltec

I believe the most likely Combat would look simular to "Babalon 5" or "Earth Above and Beyond". I found that Jumpgate (the origanal game) best simulated this effect with there "dancer" graphics engine. No gravity means  inertia plays a much bigger role and can also be stratigic in use. Example: flying forward, cut power turn ship and fire backward while still moving forward at near full speed. Loved that game.

Pyuk

I think it would be very much like modern day submarine warfare, except using radar instead of sonar. I don't think there will come a day when there's individual space fighter craft, though. And if there were small fighter craft, it would be unmanned, imo.

thexrated

Originally posted by Puuk


I think it would be very much like modern day submarine warfare, except using radar instead of sonar. I don't think there will come a day when there's individual space fighter craft, though. And if there were small fighter craft, it would be unmanned, imo.

 

Thats pretty much how it would be. And how it was described in the book I mentioned.

They did have one manned ships, but those were used for scouting and scanning.

vladakov

 comon its nothing like anything in the media obviously...  in space combat they´d use  either nuclear weapons or electromagnetic weapons, either one your dead.   its going to be boring anyway, it will always be 1shots...

 

i don´t really care either lol ^^

Nebless

Granted it's based on the B5 universe so there is Sci-Fi aspects in it, but for those that want to try there is a single player game called:

Babylon 5: I've Found Her

It's set up using real Newtonian physic's laws for spaceflight, so while you can rotate your ship in any 360deg bubble direction, you're still going the original direction until you countered that force with a larger force to affect it and change directions.

This puppy wasn't made with any kind of easy mode.  Bit of a long download, but it's totally free.

Another would be Vendetta-Online with it's 10 day free trial.  Just turn off the flight assist.  Less real than the above one but still OK.

Question: since I've talked about using missiles in space; wouldn't the fire button need to be crossed to the thruster's?  Otherwise that whole 'reaction has an equal and opposite reaction' thing would either stop you or even push you backwards if doing a full salvo?

Torak

It depends what tech advancement you are talking about.

Space combat could / would be very long range and probably use high velocity guided projectiles (missiles).

The key would be to remain unseen which given the vastness of space wouldn't be to difficult. Engine flares and weapon launches would be extremely hazardous as they would give off a massive signature.

It would probably be very deadly and not very practical to build "warships" as there is really nothing you can make that can withstand a high velocity kinetic impact.

Really it would come down to who ever spotted who first and got the first shots off.

Spotting would be extremely difficult as you have a spherical field of fire with unlimited range to worry about, energy weapons as we know them, would be about useless at the distances we are talking about. Energy beams do dissipate over distance even in space. (the stronger the beam, the larger the energy source needs to be and that requires space / weight and fuel of some sort) One thing to keep in mind is the distances that would probably be involved in actual space combat. We aren't talking a few thousand meters, more along the lines of 10's of thousands of miles. Ships could use planetary bodies as cover to a point.

Even a simple weapon like a high velocity "shot" of sabot-like rounds over a large area of effect would essentially shred a space craft if it hit. Once fired they would be more or less undetectable and could travel to their targets almost indefinitely (bar any gravitational influence) Imagine a sudden shower of projectiles pelting a ship from a platform that launched them hours ago.

Missiles would be very difficult to detect. They would only need to accelerate for a very brief period to achieve velocity then they could coast into striking distance then be manually guided in for the last few minutes before impact.

Once missiles were detected (IF) it would basically come down to ECM / Jamming, as maneuvering wouldn't really do anything.  All you really need to do is rupture the hull and it's pretty much game over. Even a minor puncture could be disastrous.

Shields....yeah, you explain how that works. Energy shielding is pure fantasy sci-fi. 'Shields" are a way to allow your favorite cast to fly around in their PJ's or shirt and vest and not worry about decompression and to run into asteroids and such without taking catastrophic damage. EMP would probably be your only real "shield" from nearby guided weapons.

I'm sure you could throw in some sort of last minute "emergency" maneuvering could be done to avoid a last second hit...but...to say that's rolling the dice, is an understatement.

All in all it would probably be a very tense and terrifying experience for the crews. Think submarine warfare. Difficult to see anything and easy to die.

 

Teala

I think BSG fighters had manuevering thrusters as well as the fighters in Space Above and Beyond.     ^_^  God I am such a geek to know such things.  

thexrated

I agree that tech advancement plays a big part when trying to envision the new kind of combat. Think 16th or even late 19th century ship designer trying to vision today's air to air combat. Some authors did try to do vision ships that would flyi and doing combat in a pretty similar fashion that they did on water. 

Here are some points from wiki:

Space warfare is likely to be conducted at far greater distances and speeds than terrestrial combat. The vast distances involved pose difficult challenges for targeting and tracking, as even light requires a few seconds to traverse ranges measured in hundreds of thousands of kilometers. For example, if attempting to fire upon a target at the distance of the Moon from the Earth, the image one sees reflects the position of the target slightly more than a second earlier. A projectile from a railgun recently tested by the US Navy would take over eighteen hours to cross that distance (making the simplifying and optimistic assumption that it will travel in a straight line at a constant velocity of 5.8 km/s along its entire trajectory). Even a laser will need approximately 1.28 seconds, meaning a laser-based weapon system would need to lead a target's apparent position by 1.28×2 = 2.56 seconds.

Three factors conspire to make engaging targets in space very difficult. First, the vast distances involved mean that an error of even a fraction of a degree in the firing solution could result in a miss by thousands of kilometers. Second, space travel involves tremendous speeds by terrestrial standards—a geostationary satellite moves at a speed of 3.07 km/s whereas objects in low earth orbit can move at up to 8 km/s. Third, though distances are large, targets remain relatively small. The International Space Station, currently the largest artificial object in Earth orbit, measures slightly over 100m at its largest span. Other satellites can be orders of magnitude smaller, e.g. Quickbird measures a mere 3.04m. External ballistics for stationary terrestrial targets is enormously complicated--some of the earliest analog computers were used to calculate firing solutions for naval artillery, as the problems were already beyond manual solutions in any reasonable time--and the issues in targeting objects in space make a difficult problem even harder.

tman5

Originally posted by jakin


Can't really have the discussion if one doesn't frame the situation properly.  Is the question assuming the technology of the Star Trek universe, or assuming current day tech, or something in-between?
The tactics and strategy of a battle is almost completely dependent on the platforms that are engaging in the fight - and in this particular case, would also have a great deal to do with what fantasy technological solutions exist that would make combat in space viable. 

 

 

This is the best answer out here.  Without defining the technical boundaries of the discussion, we'll be all over the map.

 

My answer was assuming no major changes in our understanding of the laws of physics or how we interact within them.  This eliminates all Trek tech, Star Wars-like fighters and superlimunal capability.  I was assuming our present space technology, enhanced 50-100 years (which, at the rate we're going, will probably still be too primative to even warrant space combat.)

Neanderthal

Originally posted by Dragim


History channel did a space wars type thing and it wouldn't be like the star wars or star trek space battles we see.
Since light speed travels at, well, the speed of light.  A laser beam would hit whatever it is shot at as soon as it is shot,....

 

Only if you're close enough.  Keep in mind that it takes even light some time to travel.  The lightspeed delay from the moon to the earth is..um..what is it?  About three seconds?  I forget exactly at the moment.

So a lot depends on how far away you can see your enemy.  And if you can see him from far enough then you aren't actually seeing him where he is NOW you're seeing him where he WAS two or three or four seconds ago, or maybe even a full minute in the past.

So imagine you spot an enemy ship at 10 light seconds distance.  You wouldn't want to fire on that position because that's were he was 10 seconds ago.  You would plot his course and speed and probable maneuvering capabilities to predict where he might be 20 seconds after he occupied that position.  20 seconds because it took 10 for his light to reach you and it will take another 10 for your lasers to reach him.  Plus whatever time it takes you to actually aim and fire your weapons.

But now the problem is that if your enemy has any brains he's not necessarily going to move in an unvarying course.  He might thrust perpendicular to his current course or he might turn around and decelerate at maximum thrust or he might change his speed and vector in any way.

So your computer is going to generate a three dimensional cone of space wherein your enemy might occupy any position within that cone by the time your lasers reach him.

So space warfare with lightspeed weapons would very likely be a sort of guessing game.  You would fire into that cone of probable positions your enemy might occupy just hoping that you hit him, and while you're doing that you better be changing your own vector so you can keep him guessing.

But that's all assuming you can see each other from such distances.  If stealth technology screws that up then it's a whole 'nother ballgame. 

Kyleran

Originally posted by tman5

Originally posted by jakin


Can't really have the discussion if one doesn't frame the situation properly.  Is the question assuming the technology of the Star Trek universe, or assuming current day tech, or something in-between?
The tactics and strategy of a battle is almost completely dependent on the platforms that are engaging in the fight - and in this particular case, would also have a great deal to do with what fantasy technological solutions exist that would make combat in space viable. 

 

 

This is the best answer out here.  Without defining the technical boundaries of the discussion, we'll be all over the map.

 

My answer was assuming no major changes in our understanding of the laws of physics or how we interact within them.  This eliminates all Trek tech, Star Wars-like fighters and superlimunal capability.  I was assuming our present space technology, enhanced 50-100 years (which, at the rate we're going, will probably still be too primative to even warrant space combat.)

 

Assuming the universe behaves more or less like the laws of physics as we currently believe them to be, EVE probably has the most realisitic combat model of any game to date. (minus the warp drive physics)

Battles will likely be straight line affairs of either interscting fleets or fleets coming head on at each other.  There won't be a lot of manuevering going on.

Larry Niven/Jerry Pournelle have written several novels that do a good job of describing realistic combat mechanics and this web site will really go into some detail if you're interested in a scientific approach to the discussion.

gizmodo.com/5426453/the-physics-of-space-battles