The Physics of Space Battles

Nocbl2 wrote:The missiles I really don't see working. I mean, we're talking hundreds of MILES between ships, so they would be out of the question if we're talking speed, unless it's a dogfight and the fighters get really close to each other.

Kinetic slugs, eh. Feasible. But they couldn't do much else but make a hole in the ship to chuck in a couple of missiles that would shatter vital systems. The slugs themselves as weapons wouldn't do too well against a reactor core- they might shut it down for a minute or so, but would otherwise just go through the other side. Unless they hit something solid, nothing happens.

Um dude, missles have almost no effect in space. Did you miss that part of the article or even my post. In space there is NOTHING. No resistance, so if you threw a rock in space, it would keep going until it met resistance. Missles get their destructive power from the explosion and the shock wave. The emptiness of space would effectively remove these elements and make a missile nothing but a dud.

If you hit the ship enough times with enough slugs then you can cause damage. If the ship is pressurized then one hole in the hull will cause the ship to decompress and that in itself can cause damage.

Real life isn't like star trek of battlestar galactica or even halo. Games and shows like that don't do things with real life physics because they are boring. People like big explosions and what not. Thats why games and movies put them in space.


Also, what was with that stupid ass comment Trooper? It made absolutely no sense...

Leafy, you do realize that he presents solutions for the problems of missiles, right? I'd also note that not all missiles are "explosion" based.

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:

Nocbl2 wrote:The missiles I really don't see working. I mean, we're talking hundreds of MILES between ships, so they would be out of the question if we're talking speed, unless it's a dogfight and the fighters get really close to each other.

Kinetic slugs, eh. Feasible. But they couldn't do much else but make a hole in the ship to chuck in a couple of missiles that would shatter vital systems. The slugs themselves as weapons wouldn't do too well against a reactor core- they might shut it down for a minute or so, but would otherwise just go through the other side. Unless they hit something solid, nothing happens.

Um dude, missles have almost no effect in space. Did you miss that part of the article or even my post. In space there is NOTHING. No resistance, so if you threw a rock in space, it would keep going until it met resistance. Missles get their destructive power from the explosion and the shock wave. The emptiness of space would effectively remove these elements and make a missile nothing but a dud.

If you hit the ship enough times with enough slugs then you can cause damage. If the ship is pressurized then one hole in the hull will cause the ship to decompress and that in itself can cause damage.

Real life isn't like star trek of battlestar galactica or even halo. Games and shows like that don't do things with real life physics because they are boring. People like big explosions and what not. Thats why games and movies put them in space.


Also, what was with that stupid ass comment Trooper? It made absolutely no sense...

i have a bloody link dumb ass Halo nerds are really into this one

But in the end, isn't just making a lot of small metal slugs and shooting a lot of them at the enemy ship easier than making shrapnel missiles which all need fuel, guidance systems, or a payload?

Nukes would really be the only missile that I can think of worth actually firing because of the radiation and effect on systems. But honestly, I'm sure all of the systems on a ship would be protected against radiation or exactly this reason.

Radiation wise, im sure the part of the ship which houses the crew would have to be protected against radiation due to the fact that radiation is rampant in space. The atmosphere and magnetic field on Earth protect us, so space ships would need something too.

Also, try proper punctuation. You may have changed your name but your horrible spelling and grammar are still identifiably you.

nukes would probably devestate a ship. You guys seem to forget that the energy still goes somewhere, and if it goes in contact with the ship or nearby it, there is a *** ton of energy going right into it.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:nukes would probably devestate a ship. You guys seem to forget that the energy still goes somewhere, and if it goes in contact with the ship or nearby it, there is a *** ton of energy going right into it.

Yeah, but it would have to go off reasonably close.
In the distances required by space battles, it might as well need to go off right beside you.

And yeah, I saw the "Reach" thing over on HBO. Anyhow, another contender for the name is "Siberia".
Being a Halo fan and a fanfic author, I oppose both, on the grounds that Reach isn't watery, and "Siberia Prime" is an iceball rich in transition metals.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:

Kasrkin Seath wrote:nukes would probably devestate a ship. You guys seem to forget that the energy still goes somewhere, and if it goes in contact with the ship or nearby it, there is a *** ton of energy going right into it.

Yeah, but it would have to go off reasonably close.
In the distances required by space battles, it might as well need to go off right beside you.

Which is the problem with missiles in general

In the end no one will know until someone fires a nuke at an object in space to see what happens.

we should nuke the ISS

Vtrooper, I have yet to fully grasp the logic behind ranting about halo fans on a forum founded and maintained by halo fans.

I don't think big cannons or things like that would really work in space. Recoil would be devastating for high velocity projectiles. Equal and opposite reaction, even on land or in the seas or skies, can make bullets or slugs or cannons miss completely if they fire too quickly after the first round is fired. I'll make an accurate Earth-bound comparison––destroyers and cruisers in the oceans. If you've ever worked on a ship that has fired a round, or watched videos of oceanic battles, you know that with every shot the ship rocks back and forth. With its delicate design to keep it up, and lovely lovely gravity, (plus water) it doesn't have a lasting effect. But in space, if you fired a slug, it'd have to have massive propulsion and velocity to do anything once it hit the target. So, recoil would also be equally massive. If you're fighting at large ranges, then you need power. And... you end up with Mr. Battleship spinning end-over-end.

You miss the part where we fire these rounds from recoilless coil and rail guns?

No you wouldn't. Seeing as the battleship would have a FAR greater mass than the projectile, the deducted speed would not be so devastating as you say. Primary and secondary maneuvering thrusters would counter-burn to equalize the force. This has been addressed in almost every sci fi work that has been made, including this article.

EDIT:Just to clarify, magnetic weapons still have recoil.

Why are projectiles and weaponry the issue? The best way to destroy a ship is from the inside. Launching troops out and crash landing them into specific areas.

The launching pods would be similar to ODST ones, but maneuverable and a hard shell with a powerful lance at the end.

It would simply latch into the ship while the troops deploy on the outside. They disable the turrets and eventually render its defenses useless.

And now the troops have two options

1.The troops regroup at a specific area, and flash the area ( purple strobe lights). A rescue ship arrives and gathers the troops and returns to the ship. The landing ships explode destroying the ship.

2.The landing ships then chemically flush the entire ship with mustard gas before the troops peel open the hull and capture the ship.


Also, formation is the easiest way to lose. Each launching ship would practically scatter and zig-zag. The troops would be all doing something different.

This gets rid of the horizontal fighting. It comes to a matter of trying to stop the launching ships. Which is practically impossible.

Dud Doodoo wrote:EDIT:Just to clarify, magnetic weapons still have recoil.

Really? I assumed that since they use magnetism to pull the slug, rather than an chemical explosive to push to slug, that there wouldn't be recoil, or that it would be negligible compared to regular guns.

Zaki90 wrote:Why are projectiles and weaponry the issue? The best way to destroy a ship is from the inside. Launching troops out and crash landing them into specific areas.

The launching pods would be similar to ODST ones, but maneuverable and a hard shell with a powerful lance at the end.

It would simply latch into the ship while the troops deploy on the outside. They disable the turrets and eventually render its defenses useless.

And now the troops have two options

1.The troops regroup at a specific area, and flash the area ( purple strobe lights). A rescue ship arrives and gathers the troops and returns to the ship. The landing ships explode destroying the ship.

2.The landing ships then chemically flush the entire ship with mustard gas before the troops peel open the hull and capture the ship.


Also, formation is the easiest way to lose. Each launching ship would practically scatter and zig-zag. The troops would be all doing something different.

This gets rid of the horizontal fighting. It comes to a matter of trying to stop the launching ships. Which is practically impossible.

No. While I would assume that some form of space marines will be used to board ships for one reason or another (ship does not have sufficient weapons to win a standard fight, high value targets inside, ect) there are few reasons why you would prefer boarding over your weapons. A rail gun that extends the length of the ship would pack more than enough firepower to rip a ship apart with one shot. The combination of these rail guns, (there could potentially several) medium power cannons, and missiles create an extremely effective weapons system.

Marines, on the other hand, would have to travel at the painfully slow velocities required not only to keep humans alive but to keep them conscious. These low speeds would make them ideal targets for point defense systems, which would tear them apart in transport. If an effective delivery system could even be devised, I doubt it would have a 100% success rate. These failures coupled with enemy point defense systems and fighters would create massive losses before they even got out of their pods. Once aboard the enemy ship they would have to fight against both enemy personnel and auto defense systems. This process could potentially take HOURS to complete, in contrast to the mere half second required for a MAC to shatter the hull and render it unusable.

Obviously boarding would have it's uses, but I don't see how it could think it would be an effective alternative to ship to ship combat.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Dud Doodoo wrote:EDIT:Just to clarify, magnetic weapons still have recoil.

Really? I assumed that since they use magnetism to pull the slug, rather than an chemical explosive to push to slug, that there wouldn't be recoil, or that it would be negligible compared to regular guns.

...
...
You're joking, right? I've done the calculations, and the recoil from the expanding gasses doesn't even account for ONE HUNDREDTH of the recoil.

Zaki90 wrote:Why are projectiles and weaponry the issue? The best way to destroy a ship is from the inside. Launching troops out and crash landing them into specific areas.

So... you're going to launch troop ships full of fleshy meatsacks against a target, brimming with PDS, hope they last long enough to get within meters of the objective (When the battle spans thousands of kilometers) and... cut their way in?

Getting close enough would be too much of a problem. You've got to speed your way over and then slow down fast enough to match the enemy's orbit and velocity.
If they were going to cut their way in or fill the ship with chemical gas, I would easily defeat them by
A) Rotating the ship and evading so that the soldiers are cut off from escape craft, and potentially the landing craft.
B) Discretely placing canisters of expanding, non-flammable foam mixed with carbon fibers. Upon boarding (or heavy clouds of shrapnel) the canisters would go off and cover a section of the ship with the foam, impeding boarding attempts.

Zaki90 wrote:This gets rid of the horizontal fighting. It comes to a matter of trying to stop the launching ships. Which is practically impossible.

In your dreams.

Not to mention that if you put blast doors here and there, you can seal off sections of the ship. This would also be useful for preventing a hull breach from compromising the entire ship.

Why would you even have atmosphere?

Well, on larger ships, atmosphere would make things much easier to do. In small craft, I could understand, but that's because people don't have to live in those smaller ships. Larger ships are essentially mobile military bases.

Yeah, but as to why this atmosphere wouldn't be stored during battle...

Probably expensive to issue an EVA suit for every personnel aboard each ship.

Answer to kinetic weapons in space is simple, hybridize them.
Introduce a MAC style firing system for an initial velocity. then have a missile engine carry a metal slug or nuke towards a target making course corrections as needed.
then they hybrid missiles will burn all fuel left in reserves before impact for some extra penetration.
the magnetic forces on the engine half of the missile could be reduced by shielding and the like. the only problem is with suck forces acting on a nuclear warhead it might go off in the rail and then your weaponless.

Rotaretilbo wrote:Probably expensive to issue an EVA suit for every personnel aboard each ship.

Much less expensive than maintaining an atmosphere and escape pods.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:Probably expensive to issue an EVA suit for every personnel aboard each ship.

Much less expensive than maintaining an atmosphere and escape pods.

Depends on the ship I would think.

I think it would be easier to simply have an atmosphere in larger ships.