What would real-life space war/combat be like?

[Greenback]

Yup. Until then, I need to keep my amateur status to be eligible for the olympics.

[lokij]

Real life space combat.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2121111&C=america

[kanicbird]

@js_africanus

I must respectfully—and I mean respectfully (since I’m an idiot)—call bullshit. An unmaned platform with a phalanx gun system would kill any effective IPBM:

Perhaps, but remember we still can’t see the spaceships we left on the moon, how is your gun going to see a dark unpowered suitcase nuke? But I see that planets would be heavially defended and interplantary offensive attacks would be cost prohibative.

I think the OP must necessarily presuppose ships with effective movements. Otherwise, it is trivially absurd: imagine trying to come up with a hypothetical that imposed the Midway battle on trireme warships!

I think it’s reasonable to assume we will be using chemical or nuke propulsion for some time to come, which really limits how one can attach a ship enroute. So I am assuming WW2 in the Pacific with ships barely able to cross the ocean.

To go in a straight line, the Red Baron needed massive amounts of energy; however, a space fighter can literally coast along. There is no new physics to be dealt with: chaning direction cost the Red Baron a lot of energy, but he could turn some of his forward momentum into the force for changing direction; however, a space fighter wouldn’t need any energy to go straight, and wouldn’t need extra energy to climb since they would be, on net, at gravitational equilibrium (otherwise they would be falling instead of being in orbit).

Your comparison to early flight I don’t get. The Red Baron could carry enough fuel to do a reat deal of delta v, a spaceship on a interplantary trip can’t, unless you can pick up fuel along the way.

Faced with, say, a phalanx-type gun, the fighter may get creamed, or it may avoid; what is important is that the phalanx gun generates a shitload of heat, which means that it will be very easy to spot in space. Send a small drone: it gets capped by a bunch of 20mm rounds, but the mass of it keeps toward the gun at lethal speeds and then…then some simple Kamakazi drones should destroy the ship’s guns.

Well I think you hit upon something here, the first strike could be a MERV like missle, where micromissles or even KE projectiles could take out orbital defenses.

After that, it’s a land war, as shuttles of marines latch on to each battle ship, cut into the hulls, and begin fighting for the $200 trillion machines.

If a spaceship, space station, or orbital platform is a objective, it seems like the tactic would be to cripple it, wait for the people to die then occupy it.

Whatever it is, we cannot suppose the simplistic space technology of today as a model for interplanetary war. The Space Shuttle is not a weaponized platform; it cannot serve as model, nor can any simplistic vision of the future.

Well I’m not considering weaponizing the space shuttle, but still can’t ignore the amount of fuel required for space travel. Look at Apollo, the Saturn V multistage rocket, filled with fuel was needed to transport a alumininim foil teepee from earth to the moon (Ok and return craft).

[BMalion]

It occurs to me that if whoever built an Orion spacecraft, much like the one featured in Laeey Nivens novel Footfall, would own space.

Huge, armoured bottom plate, uses nuclear bombs for propulsion and defense, missles, gatling guns, launches shuttles for sorties, what’s not to love?

USS Michael

[BMalion]

@BMalion

It Laeey Nivens

Oops, I meant the other Niven, Larry.