Wouldn't the most effective space weapon just be a good missile?
Basically it boils down to what kind of technology is available. If missiles (and by extension kinetic projectiles in general) can be easily intercepted or otherwise prevented from reaching their target by point defense systems, then it's probable that direct-fire lightspeed or near-c weapons will take on a more direct role. If such projectiles cannot be easily stopped at all, by maneuver or otherwise, kinetic weapons might well be cheaper and thus more plentiful than missiles. Generally, however, the probable engagement distances of fractional light-seconds once you're outside of very low orbits (and hence no longer have any sort of "horizon" to worry about) will make low-velocity kinetics ("low" being relative to the speed of light) much less useful than either lasers (which have the same velocity as your detection systems) or missiles (which can make course corrections to counteract enemy maneuvers or simple inaccuracies). Again, though, technology - if you can't build lasers capable of defeating enemy armor in terms of similar mass-budgets at such distances or the tyranny of the rocket equation precludes missiles both operating and maneuvering at that distance, such that engagement envelopes are measured in tens, hundred, or thousands of kilometers, then kinetic weapons start to look more attractive.
As for detection strategy, well, i2amroy notes, space is indeed quite large, and only a fraction of it is likely to be tapped. That said, however, it is also extremely empty. Thermal background radiation is around 3 Kelvin; by contrast to this, even a ship operating at 0 C is going to stand out like a torch. Voyager 1, on the far side of the heliopause and broadcasting a radio signal of only 20 watts, can be picked up from scratch in
less than a second, using modern technology alone. On the Earth, the detection problem is complicated by a very dense (relatively speaking) local environment - if your stealth bomber has the radar profile of a sparrow, well, there are plenty of sparrows around - as well as the curvature of the Earth itself - a tiny bit of distance is all you need to put a planet between you and the target. In space, there is no horizon to hide behind, and at significant distances, hiding behind, say, another planet is not going to get you to your destination, and it's only going to cover fractions of an arcsecond's worth of sky. Any burn to accelerate, decelerate, or maneuver will be observable, and you can bet that unless your opponent's military high command has their heads so far up their rear they're seeing light from the far side (in which case, why are they even a threat?), they're going to be watching their skies for any hint of that sort of visible sign of attack. In other words, yes space is empty, but don't imagine it like two people being set on random points on the Earth. Imagine it like them being put down on a completely featureless plane, in the darkness, carrying omnidirectional floodlights. If either of them turns on their light to get their bearings/find the other one, the other will know where they are immediately. And again, that's two-dimensional rather than three. The real-world detection problems you usually hear are two-fold: we're either looking for something that's cooled down to background levels (asteroids) or we're looking for something at distances of light-years (alien life). Enemy military forces will qualify for neither, especially if they need to get to you in order to attack.
That said, you can try to "beat" the signal, especially if it still travels at the speed of light. If you have FTL drives but no FTL detection, you can embark on the
Picard maneuver on a strategic scale. If you have relativistic weapons and absolutely no moral compunctions, you can set up a relativistic weapons at a few light-days out, accelerate your projectiles to such a velocity that the light from your weapons will only reach them within some marginal time scale before the projectiles themselves do, then aim at whatever BDT they have to target, which will usually be the planet they're living on. In terms of historical strategy parallels, it's the idea of "base control" taken up a notch to full-on "base denial" - it doesn't matter if you destroy their fleet or not, because if they have no place to refuel, rearm, repair, or resupply, they're a dead duck.
EDIT: Three new replies...well, let's skim those and revise quick.
@Gilgamesh- well what is it then? Earlier I was told that an ion pulse would spread itself out because of the charge all being the same and now your telling me it's a beam? Wouldn't a beam not fit that whole spreading itself out effect?
Also this weapon would be used at a greater distance and a crap load of energy put into it so basicaly firing (by the time it gets to the target anyway not straight out the barrel) a wall of charged particles (ya going a but soft scifi on this) that would knock out the incoming fighters electronics but not past the larger ships shielding. And with the why are they at war? Same reasons we would have war.
Religion, resources (Dune anyone? Maybe there is a very rare resource that while not entirely needed (not referencing dune right now) is highly desirable. Civilizations would have war over this resource), politics, civil war (I suppose this might fit with politics but eh), racism towards the other space fairing civs, etc.
@i2amroy- Most of the combat in this game will be taking place near (like as close as the moon is to earth near) planets. The shotgun/ion beam whatever it is might also be used against planets, think like a mobile solar flare generator. You could knock out an entire planet in a couple shots or at least take out the tech in larger/more populated areas.
Edit: also who's to say you can't fit on equipment to adjust a projectiles flight that is fired from a rail gun? After all it's not traveling a few hundred feet, not a couple miles, maybe not even a hundred miles but more there is enough distance for adjustment. Also choosing railguns over lasers because they have the weight to punch through shielding and possibly smaller than a laser and cheaper.
After all wouldn't it be easier to generate a shield that deflected lasers or absorbed their energy than it would be to make something that deflected multiple heavy rods. (I say multiple because it would be roughly the same energy to fire a couple of rods as it would be to fire a sustained energy beam of similar strength)
Alright, now we're getting some details on the technology available. Earth-Moon system means that most of the broad strokes apply, actually, you'd need to be in planetary orbit, and likely low planetary orbit, for the planet itself to change the game. As for beam diffusion, your particle beam is going to lose power fast as it spreads out - you don't want it to spread out too much, not if you want it to hit its target(s) and actually do anything. Your shields need to be orders of magnitude weaker between fighters and heavy ships to work in this manner. As well, if it's so trivial to wipe out fighters, then the awkward question quickly arises of why fighters are even utilized. You don't benefit from them from a volume analysis (acceleration is based on mass, but velocities are not restricted by cross-sectional area like they are on Earth) or range extension (on Earth, fighters are utilized to extend strike capabilities over the horizon or beyond gun range, which is less important when there is no horizon and no gravity or atmosphere to reduce gun ranges), you can't protect them, and if they get shot down before they ever get close to their targets, then the resources that went into their construction were effectively wasted.
As for shielding against lasers versus kinetics, that depends on how your shield is designed (assuming you mean Star Trek/Wars shields and not, say, whipple shields). It's very probably going to be very "soft" scientifically speaking, so you as the author could handwave it any way you like, but it depends on what kind of rule of thumb you use. If your force field deals purely in blocking energy, and moreover that energy is energy, it's less likely to matter if it's electromagnetic or kinetic in nature. If it deflects masses through some sort of gravitational effect with some sort of absolute threshold (for some arbitrary piece of handwavium), it may well be more effective on the massless photons than on mass weapons. Star Trek shields, for example, are presumably highly effective against projectiles (very weak navigational shields suffice to protect against particles moving at relativistic or effectively-FTL velocities), and moderately effective against energy or missile-type weapons. Dune shields by contrast have radical and highly unpredictable interactions with lasers and beam weapons, but allow slow-moving weapons to get through.
Finally, if you utilize "equipment to adjust the projectile's flight" (say, some sort of reaction jet system on the projectile?), you're not simply firing a rail gun anymore. You're firing a very simple missile.
Author
Topic: Space Thread (Read 289969 times)