How would a space battle happen?

[Alessan]

@xtisme

Well, as Grey pointed out we are talking about higher speeds. I was speculating about ships that could go aprox .5c…which would mean weapons systems that could go faster. Even at .1c though we are talking about some pretty fast stuff. Also, I was talking about missile delivered ‘clouds’, which would coast in ballistically and then light off their drive for their terminal approach, detonating at some fixed distance to disperse a ‘cloud’ of projectiles with a pattern calculated to impact on the target. If you fired enough missiles, some would reach attack range (inspite of anti-missile missiles) and you should get some hits.

You are probably right about purely ballistic weapons…they’d either have to fire at high fractions of c or would have to fire in fairly close to be effective. Beam weapons of course would fire at c, but I don’t know what realistic ranges you could actually achieve with, say, a high powered laser.

-XT

Anti-missile missile will probably be a waste - the best anti missile weapon would be a high-powered laser. I imagine a ship launching a swarm of missiles, either nuclear or exploding-cloud, while the automatic point defence system of the target scrambles to shoot them out of the sky. The missiles may have stealth capapbility, and if they’re launched ballistically they’ll have a good chance to get pretty close; still, they’ll have to fire up their drive at some point in order to aim, which may give him some time to shoot them dowm. You’ll have a few tense seconds between when enmy missiles appear on the screen and when they come too close to be intercepted. Maybe, before misslies are launched, ships will try and scour each other with their lasers - at those ranges it won’t do much damage to the armored hull, but it can take out sensors and defensive lasers, softening the target up before the missiles are launched.

[jimmmy]

@mks57

The effects of a nuclear weapon detonated in space are much smaller than the effects of the same weapon detonated in the Earth’s atmosphere. In space, the detonation produces a burst of soft x-rays from black-body radiation. That’s about it. Most of the effects that we associate with nuclear weapons are caused by the interaction of the device with the atmosphere. A good description of the process can be found at Effects of Nuclear Explosions. Read section 5.3.1, Fireball Physics.

I get that the Blast and shock wave would be less, or non-existent, in space.

However the radiation would be many times greater and widening in space, as NASA says:

“It does seem clear, however, that manned space combat vehicles, unless heavy shielding is feasible, will be considerably more vulnerable to nuclear defense weapons than their unmanned counterparts”
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/conghand/nuclear.htm

Also, any particles in the space or debris nearby would also be accelerated many times and be dangerous in themselves. X-tisme talked about shields which could protect the ship from blasts etc. If such things existed, I guess they would/could protect from radiation too & the idea of nukes would not work. But it wasn’t a bad idea I don’t think and probably the only truly reliable one with the technology available over the next, say 50 years.

[Tripler]

robertliguori touched on the fact that empty space isn’t worth defending, which made me remember a quote from a book I read:

Fleet Tactics by Wayne Hughes Jr, Capt (ret) USN:

While it is proper to think of the destruction of the enemy’s fleet as the fleet’s foremost objective, beyond that immediate objective is always some higher goal. The seat of purpose is on the land.

[sub]-bolding by Tripler[/sub]

meaning that, granted a huge space fleet battle would be impressive, but attacking the users/benefactors of that space fleet is the utmost objective.

Thus being said, space itself really can’t be thought of as the frontlines, but the medium in which to fight a war. And given it’s just a huge open field, the principles of timing, maneuver, and striking a center of mass [sub]i.e. the power systems of a facility or spacecraft[/sub] become of the utmost importance.

Alessan hits the fact that battles would take place near planets or stations, and I think this is true. Given the OP is sticking with current technology and within real physics, as the armchair general I am, what am I going to go after? Your sensors and power grid. And where would they be? Sensors may be in space, but you’re generating power on the inhabited body itself (especially for command and control functions)—one can’t exactly transmit energy for power easily. Keep in mind, without power yourself, you aren’t exactly going to have life support for very long if you’re spaceborne. So, I’m going to leave you blind and deaf. Then I will take you apart piecemeal, as I see fit.

To be honest, I don’t see space battles being all that impressive. I see two remote bodies such as planets, moons, or maybe an orbiting station, flinging rocks at each other’s ‘soft spots’, and not much else. Unless the two warring parties are extremely close, all you’re going to see are things whizzing by your head, if you’re standing in the middle.

Tripler
And if I happen to get caught in the middle, remember to take your Y or Z axis, not the X (that’ll take you towards one of the targets.)