Future Warfare

Ah, finally cracked the 15 posts that lets me post links and pics and stuff. Here's a nice NASA derived pic, I found on Wikipedia, they call the Interplanetary Transport Network

Interplanetary_Superhighway.jpg



This is the local battleground I reckon. Basically it's a (not to scale) pic of the minimum fuel-cost routes that you can slingshot your BattleStar about - linking up all the planets and their Lagrange points.

Sure, you don't have to fly through them. But this is the primo real-estate we'll want to spill our blood and hydraulic fluids over. Actually we'll probably be mostly fighting inside these virtual tubes in the end, since despite what our pollies tell us, it's very seldom a short and decisive war. War of Attrition and all that.
 
Last edited:
Sure, you don't have to fly through them. But this is the primo real-estate we'll want to spill our blood and hydraulic fluids over. Actually we'll probably be mostly fighting inside these virtual tubes in the end, since despite what our pollies tell us, it's very seldom a short and decisive war. War of Attrition and all that.
I suppose anyone who doesn't want to be involved in planetary bottle necks might feel incentivized to find a nice asteroid to live instead.
 
Last edited:
I suppose anyone who doesn't want to be involved in planetary bottle necks might feel incentivized to find a nice asteroid to live instead.

I admire your lateral thinking. This is a valuable trait that will be reflected in the Collective after your inevitable assimilation.
 
So, whilst in space, what shall we shoot at each other then?
That is a great question which has been debated above. My position is that at least some militaries will use lasers will be used as a standoff weapon and rail guns for closer ranges, as well as guided rockets and the like. Others disagree...

Of course, we all know the real answer is squid. Squid will be the projectile of choice.
 
My position is that at least some militaries will use lasers will be used as a standoff weapon and rail guns for closer ranges, as well as guided rockets and the like. Others disagree...

Rail-guns might be slightly problematic in a zero-G environment.

K2
 
Rail-guns might be slightly problematic in a zero-G environment.

K2
How so? They will push the ship, but not any more than the amount of energy the ship can produce to launch them. If they pushed the ship significantly, rail guns would be good engines.
 
By that logic (of a rail-gun not being much), than why not simply use a standard cannon? That whole 'third law' deal and so on. On the other hand, think of a hammer/discus throw. Mount a number of projectiles on 2 or more high-speed counter-rotating (spinning) magazines, and then release them in pairs.

K2
 
By that logic (of a rail-gun not being much), than why not simply use a standard cannon? That whole 'third law' deal and so on. On the other hand, think of a hammer/discus throw. Mount a number of projectiles on 2 or more high-speed counter-rotating (spinning) magazines, and then release them in pairs.

K2
I think the answer to that question has a lot do with with the difference in the way momentum (mass x velocity) vs energy (1/2 Mass x the square of Velocity) are calculated. Some of it has to do with what space ships have available to fight with - vacuum and electricity. And some of it has to do with how easy it is to detect dense objects vs. intercepting or dodging them at long ranges in a vacuum.

Would you rather be struck by a 9mm bullet or a car moving at 10kph? The car has 1500 times the momentum and 15 times the energy of the bullet.


I don't follow you pair of hammers thing. If you release them in pairs from counter rotating launchers, the net force on the ship will be whatever their vectors add up to be. The fact that they were counter rotating won't matter the moment they're launched. Are you suggesting firing at the enemy and the in the opposite direction at the same time? Why not just use the engines?
 
@Joshua Jones

I play my mirror against your laser (and a spermwhale against your cephalopod for that matter!)
The only trouble with a mirror is that, while the light is reflected, it still picks up some of the heat. If it is a sufficiently powerful laser, there is a decent chance that it will burn through the mirror. That is why I prefer the approach of diffusing the laser with some kind of clear crystal, and absorbing the diffused light. Preferably to be redirected back to the defending ship's weapons...

And, sperm whales in space? Don't be ridiculous... :)
 
The only trouble with a mirror is that, while the light is reflected, it still picks up some of the heat. If it is a sufficiently powerful laser, there is a decent chance that it will burn through the mirror. That is why I prefer the approach of diffusing the laser with some kind of clear crystal, and absorbing the diffused light. Preferably to be redirected back to the defending ship's weapons...
The mirrors can be spun to distribute the heat, actively cooled or rapidly replaced from a bail like a race car windscreen protector or from a liquid source like a soap bubble.

Taking a mirror made of diamond and crunching it up into little shards doesn't make it any more efficient in reflecting and much less efficient at transferring energy.

If you just like little crystals, consider ice. You can replace it almost instantly.
 
I don't follow you pair of hammers thing. If you release them in pairs from counter rotating launchers, the net force on the ship will be whatever their vectors add up to be. The fact that they were counter rotating won't matter the moment they're launched. Are you suggesting firing at the enemy and the in the opposite direction at the same time? Why not just use the engines?

Released...

K2
 
The mirrors can be spun to distribute the heat, actively cooled or rapidly replaced from a bail like a race car windscreen protector or from a liquid source like a soap bubble.

Taking a mirror made of diamond and crunching it up into little shards doesn't make it any more efficient in reflecting and much less efficient at transferring energy.

If you just like little crystals, consider ice. You can replace it almost instantly.
My friend, I think you are still missing what I am getting at. Reflecting a laser is pretty easy, but there is a possibility that it will then go and hit something else. And, all that energy is simply wasted. So, what I am suggesting is not reflection, and therefore, not using a mirror. Rather, I am interested in the possibilities of absorbing the energy from a laser, possibly to give your own weapons a boost. Now, one could just coat their ship in solar panels and call it armor, but if we are going for realism, the laser would just burn through the panels. If, however, the light is no longer in beam form, but spread out over a significantly larger area, the energy could be absorbed. And, if the material used is sufficiently durable to heat, it won't necessarily need to be replaced. Hence why I suggested a faceted crystal, which can have all of these properties. The facets allow for light distribution, the transparency will reduce heat transfer, and the strength of the structure will allow it to function when impacted with other materials.

So, it isn't about making a crystal spaceship, but about one which can absorb laser strikes. An added benefit is that it could hypothetically recharge its capacitors from the local star(s), and if placed sufficiently close to a star, could have nearly unlimited energy, as the armor's light diffusion properties would not reduce the ability to absorb regular light.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top