# Space fighters vs. space battleships **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [June 11, 2011, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-fighters-vs-space-battleships/585055 "2011-06-11T01:34:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-fighters-vs-space-battleships/585055/41 "2011-06-13T19:14:32Z")
> [@Tranquilis](#): > > In any ‘realistic’ practical space war, stealth, sensors, and firing computors will rule. It’ll be a lot like submarine warfare - First one to get a firing solution wins, though there’ll be a lot of mutual kills. It’ll be incredibly deadly. Fuck **that** shit! Cast grappling hooks, draw cutlasses and board, ye scurvy spacedogs! ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-fighters-vs-space-battleships/585055/42 "2011-06-13T19:20:51Z")
I remember an early sf story in which the warships had jump drives but no energy weapons. The preferred tactic was to get in a higher orbit than your foe and drop large weights - not even explosives! - on him. Makes no sense to me now. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-fighters-vs-space-battleships/585055/43 "2011-06-13T19:30:25Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Except that the whole point of a propulsion system is that the heat and light so produced are highly directional. > [@Alessan](#): > > Fortunately, objects in space don’t need propulsion to move. If I were planning a sneak attack, I’d burn my engines when I was still out of sensor range, then go dark and coast right up to my target. If it takes weeks or months, who cares? Space travel is slow, anyway. > > Besides, I think you’re underestimating the sheer size of space. Everyone is talking about accurate targeting systems, but targeting systems will have to be \*really \*accurate. Hitting a ship in space is like hitting a specific grain of sand with another grain of sand, across Lake Superior. Any molecule-sized error in your aiming will cause your shot to miss by miles. Space is _big_. Anyone read site I linked to in post #16? If you think their arguments are way off base, I’d love to hear why. ---
**Author:** ![BMalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@BMalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BMalion)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-fighters-vs-space-battleships/585055/44 "2011-06-13T19:54:45Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Yes and no. You can’t “see one coming” and get out of its way so the delay is of no help there, but you can “serpentine! serpentine!” and hope you get missed. Bonus points for anyone who gets that reference. If you yell it with the voice of Peter Falk I might get it. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-fighters-vs-space-battleships/585055/45 "2011-06-13T20:07:02Z")
> [@](#): > > Anyone read site I linked to in post #16? If you think their arguments are way off base, I’d love to hear why. The linked site argues “But coasting in under no thrust would take _months_!”. **Alessan** is saying “And so what if it does take months?”. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-fighters-vs-space-battleships/585055/46 "2011-06-13T20:16:53Z")
> [@BMalion](#): > > If you yell it with the voice of Peter Falk I might get it. JFK to **BMalion** : “At least we tried.” ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-fighters-vs-space-battleships/585055/47 "2011-06-13T20:31:55Z")
[QUOTE=Finagle] A minor quibble, but “infinitely”? Heat and light doesn’t even travel infinitely faster than my Subaru. [/QUOTE] Figure of speech. Point is, no matter how fast your Space Subaru is you won’t get even near the speed of light. No, not even with the good nitro 😃 > [@Alessan](#): > > Fortunately, objects in space don’t need propulsion to move. If I were planning a sneak attack, I’d burn my engines when I was still out of sensor range, then go dark and coast right up to my target. If it takes weeks or months, who cares? Space travel is slow, anyway. If you’re coasting, you’re not making evasive manoeuvres by definition, which makes you trivial to hit. The light from your burn will always precede you, and will always make your last known course predictable. But even assuming you somehow managed to keep the burn a complete secret somehow, and even if your propulsion is not running, your life support systems have to. And that, too, generates heat. If you send in unmanned drones, they still need some electronics running (even if it’s just a passive remote control receiver), which again implies an on-board power generation device, which mustgenerate heat. > [@](#): > > Besides, I think you’re underestimating the sheer size of space. Everyone is talking about accurate targeting systems, but targeting systems will have to be \*really \*accurate. Hitting a ship in space is like hitting a specific grain of sand with another grain of sand, across Lake Superior. Any molecule-sized error in your aiming will cause your shot to miss by miles. Space is _big_. I would assume by the time interstellar warfare becomes a thing, computing & engineering technology will have evolved a bit too ;). But accurate targeting is not strictly necessary anyway: WW2 depth charges weren’t accurate, but throw enough of them in the water and eventually the sub gets dinged. Saturation fire can absolutely substitute for accuracy, even more so using “smart” weapons like guided missiles. Admittedly, saturation fire with mass drivers would be more problematic since, err, mass don’t stop. _Somebody_’s getting those 5 tons of high-speed steel in the face at some point, and if it’s a neolithic planet in another galaxy it’s going to come as a real shock to them 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-fighters-vs-space-battleships/585055/48 "2011-06-13T20:34:03Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Fortunately, objects in space don’t need propulsion to move. If I were planning a sneak attack, I’d burn my engines when I was still out of sensor range, then go dark and coast right up to my target. If it takes weeks or months, who cares? Space travel is slow, anyway. > > Besides, I think you’re underestimating the sheer size of space. Everyone is talking about accurate targeting systems, but targeting systems will have to be \*really \*accurate. Hitting a ship in space is like hitting a specific grain of sand with another grain of sand, across Lake Superior. Any molecule-sized error in your aiming will cause your shot to miss by miles. Space is _big_. Your second paragraph is enough to show why your first doesn’t work. Captain: Admiral, this is a brilliant plan. We started from this system’s outer planets, accelerated to a good speed, and in only four months we reach our enemy. Admiral: And by reducing our power to only that needed for life support and maintaining radio silence, they will never detect us. We’re almost there. Captain, sound orders for battle stations. Ensign: Admiral, admiral!!! Admiral: You’ve been bugging us for a month. Okay, what is it? Ensign: How are we going to stop? If you are moving fast enough to get to your destination in any reasonable amount of time (space being big) you are going to have to start decelerating in plenty of time to warn your enemies. Otherwise, your attack consists of creating fairly large craters in their planet’s surface. ---
**Author:** ![Calder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e99b99/32.png) [@Calder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calder)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-fighters-vs-space-battleships/585055/49 "2011-06-13T21:00:57Z")
The only case where stealth is possible in space is if it is at very close or above the speed of light. Everything else is trashing multiple laws of physics. > [@Chronos](#): > > The linked site argues “But coasting in under no thrust would take _months_!”. **Alessan** is saying “And so what if it does take months?”. Multiple problems with this I will just list the 2 biggest ones. 1. We aren’t taking about weeks or months to get there we are taking about years, centuries, or even millennia depending on the strength of the engine. If you read read the site you would notice that with current technology we could detect an engine with a fusion torch out past Alpha Centauri. The Space Shuttle’s much weaker main engines could be detected past the orbit of Pluto. The Space Shuttle’s maneuvering thrusters could be seen as far as the asteroid belt. And even a puny ship using ion drive to thrust at a measly 1/1000 of a g could be spotted at one astronomical unit. To put it quiet simply you are going to starve to death before you get there. 1. Space is very cold. Deep space is about 3 K. Humans tend to live in places around 290 K. It is extremely easy to detect a moving object that is hundreds of degrees hotter than it’s surrounding environment. Or as someone much smarter than me put it. Here is the typical stages people go through trying to prove stealth in space. (by Ken Burnside) Most of the arguments on thermo and space detection run through a predictable course of responses: 1. “Space is dark. You’re nuts!” 2. “OK, there’s no horizon, but the signatures can’t be that bright?” 3. “OK, the drive is that bright, but what if it’s off?” 4. “But it’s not possible to scan the entire sky quickly!” 5. “OK, so the reactors are that bright, what if you direct them somewhere else…” 6. “What if I build a sunshade?” 7. “OK, so if I can’t avoid being detected by thermal output, I’ll make decoys…” 8. “Arrgh. You guys suck all the fun out of life! It’s a GAME, dammit!” Seriously if you ever want to know anything about space flight Atomic rockets is the web site for you. The guy has spent YEARS explaining all of the data on it. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2011, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-fighters-vs-space-battleships/585055/50 "2011-06-14T00:14:21Z")
Asteroids large enough to wipe out a city have been known to pass closer than the orbit of the Moon, and only be detected _after_ they were past. If we could miss that, we can miss an attack ship. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2011, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-fighters-vs-space-battleships/585055/51 "2011-06-14T00:21:09Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Asteroids large enough to wipe out a city have been known to pass closer than the orbit of the Moon, and only be detected _after_ they were past. If we could miss that, we can miss an attack ship. Asteroids do not output heat nor light, and we’re not particularly looking for asteroids either - not to the extent we would be peering at the Black if there were known hostiles out there anyway. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2011, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-fighters-vs-space-battleships/585055/52 "2011-06-14T00:26:29Z")
The realistic problems with manned space fighters: > **[Space Fighters, Not](http://www.rocketpunk-manifesto.com/2007/08/space-fighters-not.html)** > > A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, George Lucas added Space Fighters to the standard arsenal of SF warfare tropes. For Hollywood it... Bottom line: If your engines are powerful enough, you face the same _biological_ limits on acceleration (i.e. how many G’s a human can pull and still remain conscious) with a tiny one-man space fighter as you do with a gigantic 1000-man space dreadnought. The ONLY way in which a fighter is more maneuverable than a big spaceship is that the fighter can _rotate_ more quickly, since it’s shorter from nose to tail. But the big spaceship can overcome that limitation by mounting multiple main-engines facing in several directions – or a single engine that can vector its exhaust – thereby eliminating the need to rotate in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2011, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-fighters-vs-space-battleships/585055/53 "2011-06-14T01:01:29Z")
Asteroids _are_ known hostiles, for all practical purposes. They’re not actively malicious, of course, but they could kill us just as dead. And while they don’t emit their own energy, they do reflect the Sun’s, and they’re also friggin’ huge. ---
**Author:** ![Finagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b19c9b/32.png) [@Finagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Finagle)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2011, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-fighters-vs-space-battleships/585055/54 "2011-06-14T01:03:46Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Asteroids do not output heat nor light, and we’re not particularly looking for asteroids either - not to the extent we would be peering at the Black if there were known hostiles out there anyway. What’s the surface temperature of the sunny side of an asteroid in NEO? ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2011, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-fighters-vs-space-battleships/585055/55 "2011-06-14T01:35:52Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > …If you are moving fast enough to get to your destination in any reasonable amount of time (space being big) you are going to have to start decelerating in plenty of time to warn your enemies. Otherwise, your attack consists of creating fairly large craters in their planet’s surface. I disagree. Just plot a course that takes you past the enemy planet, not directly into it, and coast on by, bombing or zapping as you get close. That said, ISTM that an elementary defensive precaution would be to map everything bigger than breadbox when you first arrived in-system, scanning in particular for metals, and then from time to time run perimeter scans to note things that hadn’t been there before. We’re already doing that with NEOs; distant-future sensors and computers ought to be up to it. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2011, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-fighters-vs-space-battleships/585055/56 "2011-06-14T01:51:23Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Asteroids _are_ known hostiles, for all practical purposes. They’re not actively malicious, of course That’s what they \*want \*you to think ! [QUOTE=Finagle] What’s the surface temperature of the sunny side of an asteroid in NEO? [/QUOTE] All right, touché. I still maintain we do not currently devote nearly as much man/computer power to asteroid watch (or the SETI project) than we would put on Kilrathi watch. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2011, 8:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-fighters-vs-space-battleships/585055/57 "2011-06-14T08:50:23Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > All right, touché. I still maintain we do not currently devote nearly as much man/computer power to asteroid watch (or the SETI project) than we would put on Kilrathi watch. If we’re dealing with Kilrathi, then stealth is back on the table in a big way. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2011, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-fighters-vs-space-battleships/585055/58 "2011-06-14T12:19:58Z")
A big distinction has to be made when discussing space war: are we talking about realistic physics and engineering- ships propelled by reaction mass and with g-force limits- or are we talking about reactionless propulsion, artifical gravity and inertial dampening? The ability to manipulate gravity and inertia changes everything. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2011, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-fighters-vs-space-battleships/585055/59 "2011-06-14T22:31:27Z")
I think we’re talking about realistic physics and engineering, albeit extrapolated into the far future. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-fighters-vs-space-battleships/585055/60 "2011-06-15T21:23:21Z")
This is why I like those old Flash Gordon spaceships-they sound like an old out of tune radio, and make lots of smoke. The idea of gian spaceships is pretty amazing-if you have the means to lift such a mass out of the earth’s gravity well, you probably don’t have to worry too much about protection against flea-sized fighters. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-fighters-vs-space-battleships/585055.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-fighters-vs-space-battleships/585055.md?page=4)