The future of space travel (A scifi thread)

[Louis TH]

This topic is inspired by one in the arcihves. I wish I could reply to it but I cannot. So I made this one.

I'd like to start this topic off by providing some interesting pieces of information.

[Youtube]Id09x6TtAyo&feature=related[/Youtube]
[Youtube]GkgU3gcrHk8&feature=related[/Youtube]
[Youtube]3lLejLLrxbI&feature=related[/Youtube]
[Youtube]DFu1yinU4ek&feature=related[/Youtube]

Also, there is one interesting website that is worth mentioning.
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/index.html
But I do not agree with everything he says, like how there will be no manned fightercraft in space combat. I'm willing to discuss it more if you people are.

 

[lrkun]

Did you make everything in that video? I'm impressed, hands down.

 

[RichardMNixon]

Did you make everything in that video? I'm impressed, hands down.

Note the logo in the bottom right corner.

 

[nasher168]

I do not agree with everything he says, like how there will be no manned fightercraft in space combat.

I can see very little reason why manned fightercraft (as in personal, light vehicles acting in a similar manner to planes) would be included in battles in space. They would have to come en masse to do any significant damage to, say, some kind of capital ship. If you had a large ship covered in weapons, targeting technology would likely be such that many fighters could be wiped out almost instantly by multiple weapons. Unless the engagement range is absolutely huge, the cost in irreplaceable human life would be too great for manned fighters to be feasible. Swarms of AI-controlled ships might work, since they can be manufactured again.
It does seem that humans would be required in some capacity would be required in large fleets, though. If nothing else, they would be required to do the unexpected in terms of tactics. If an AI is left in complete command of a fleet, all it would take to defeat them would be an AI with sufficient programming to outmanoeuvre the inferior AI. Humans, on the other hand, are unique and might be able to have an edge over a computer, though of course I might be grossly underestimating our descendants' programming skills here.

 

[Louis TH]

This looks like it will be an interesting debate with you.

I can see very little reason why manned fightercraft (as in personal, light vehicles acting in a similar manner to planes) would be included in battles in space.

The reason why I disagree with you is a historical one. WIth the introduction of the air to air missile, it was assumed that one day that no fightercraft would need a gun. And there was even a time when people thought all wars would be fought with ICBMs by now. They were wrong, because only some types of weapon systems would do and nothing else would.

They would have to come en masse to do any significant damage to, say, some kind of capital ship.

You know, it was once believed that airplanes would be too weak to deal with mighty battleships. But try telling that to the sailors at pearl harbor.

If you had a large ship covered in weapons, targeting technology would likely be such that many fighters could be wiped out almost instantly by multiple weapons. Unless the engagement range is absolutely huge, the cost in irreplaceable human life would be too great for manned fighters to be feasible.

Ture, but have you ever heard about Joint Standoff Tactical Weapons? After all, why not equip the fighters with better weapons? That is why some fightercraft, even of today, can carry what are known as anti-ship weapons. Here's my idea. A missile with a long range is attached to the fighter. Before any defensive systems will deal with it, the missile launches several smaller missiles, each one carrying its own nuclear micro-warhead. If enough of these would be launched at once, not enough of them could be intercepted. The explosives, even nuclear ones may not be strong, but they don't need to be. The high speed of impact causes the explosion to act as a shaped charge, directing all damage inward.

Swarms of AI-controlled ships might work, since they can be manufactured again.
It does seem that humans would be required in some capacity would be required in large fleets, though. If nothing else, they would be required to do the unexpected in terms of tactics. If an AI is left in complete command of a fleet, all it would take to defeat them would be an AI with sufficient programming to outmanoeuvre the inferior AI. Humans, on the other hand, are unique and might be able to have an edge over a computer, though of course I might be grossly underestimating our descendants' programming skills here.

I actually agree with everything else here. But this is why I favor using manned and unmanned fighters side by side. Another reason is what if the connection to central command is cut off? Who will give orders then? You don't want them to deactivate like the battle droids at the end of the Phantom Menace. Sure there would be some subroutines, but how long would they be good for?

 

[Unwardil]

Well, the reason for having manned anything will be the same as it is now, that ultimately the technology is going to be outsmarted by the enemy countermeasures and it's going to need a human to actually pull the trigger at the right time. I don't think that's ever going to stop being true in war.

Now, the reason for fight craft should be obvious. Even a very small fighter can deliver a very powerful missile loaded with a nuke and a manned fighter or at least a fighter being controlled directly by a human controller with have a much better success rate than an automated drone. That being said, the smallest fighters will certainly be unmanned as they would be making very very high g maneuvers, making it impossible for a pilot to be inside. This is already becoming true with terrestrial fightercraft, the planes can perform much higher g maneuvers than the pilots are physically able to withstand.

The example of the vulcan cannon still being used on fighters is a great one. It's still the primary weapon system, even on the F-22 and it's not going away soon.

I don't think capital ships will ever be big enough and durable enough to be able to shrug off a nuclear warhead without damage, so the place for fighter craft will always be there. I picture swarms of unmanned fightercraft being controlled by frigate class controller ships. Ever played homeworld? Just like the drone frigates in that, only the drones would actually be powerful enough to cause real damage instead of buzzing around ineffectually.

 

[simonecuttlefish]

Why put in human control? This is why you want people making stupid decisions. Daleks vs Movellans = stalemate.

(PS - Richard Dawkins is married to Romana, so that's why he is right : )

Starts at 5:00

 

[nasher168]

I'm not sure how much to concede here... Certainly there are valid reasons to use fighters of the kind imagined by people in this thread. What I can't see is why one could not simply snipe bombers with some kind of high energy laser before they even get close. Or why you would not rather fire said high-energy lasers at the capital ship itself. Boring a hole straight through into the central systems of an enemy capital ship seems the obvious solution. Fusion reactor in there? Not for long there isn't. And once any kind of reactor is destroyed, that ship is more or less sitting ducks.

EDIT: Oh oh oh! I know! Reflective coating. This is really getting me thinking now. Lasers would be more or less useless against ships coated in a highly-reflective coating. Therefore it seems we might have to resort to physical objects after all. Gauss cannons could be capable of doing severe damage to lightly-armoured ships (like fighters), but perhaps not to heavier capital ships. I'm thinking perhaps ships could be protected by an icy shield of some kind (like the Magellan in The Songs of Distant Earth, only this has a military use rather than just for interstellar travel). I'm starting to think that you probably couldn't have large ships within firing range of one another, or they would cripple each other severely enough to force both sides to retreat. Therefore, either a large object would have to be used as cover whilst fighters and bombers are sent out, or else the engagement range is insanely huge (as in hundreds of thousands of miles) and the same thing happens.
You've convinced me. Something I would add is that we might end up seeing boarding operations take place, perhaps swarms of nanorobots could be sent in through breaches in the hulls of larger ships to kill the crew inside, then shut down as friendly crew members board and commandeer the ship.

 

[Unwardil]

It's the age old truth that as soon as a weapons system is invented, an equal or better counter measure is conceived. Reflective coating combined with an active heat dissipation system will reduce a laser weapon to ineffectiveness and reactive armor will make armor piercing ballistics pretty useless, as would some kind of high energy electron field generators placed on the hull of a ship to deflect incoming projectiles away from the hull.

Also, consider the utility of drones acting as a kind of reactive shield for a larger capital ship, designed to actually intercept incoming fire at a distance to reduce the damage, similar to the phalanx anti missile system. There will definitely be a use for fighter sized UAVs... Or would they be USVs in space, anyways.

The last reason that there will be small craft in space is that with very great probability, the first armed conflicts in space will be akin to wild west shoot outs and robberies between pirates and private mercenaries working for private enterprise as they are going to be the first people really making their living in space. It'll be quite some time before governments start to build up any kind of space to space arsenals to do anything other than dick around in orbit blowing up each others' satellites.

 

[cri8r]

One thing you all seem to be overlooking is the basic requirements of space travel even within the solar system. If you're trying to bring a little reality to your sci-fi, examine the need for radiation shielding--at solar distances, the radiation from the sun alone would be enough to fry a crew without special shielding. The lack of a diluting atmosphere makes the bottom side of the space shuttle necessary even if reentry didn't. Did you know that all EVA is done in the shadow of the shuttle? Now you know why. But that's only the beginning. Imagine travelling at the speeds required to make manned missions between planets feasible--millions of miles in months instead of years. At those speeds, you come into contact with a micro-asteroid, a randomly floating bit of space trash. Without some form of special shielding, it will cut through your hull just like those high-speed projectiles from the first video. So just to travel in space you're going to have to come up with a shielding method that will stop both of the major weapons you've discussed. The remaining threat, antimatter, is kept at bay with nothing but a simple electromagnetic field. No, space combat will result in some form of technology we've not yet conceived. Likely, the objective will be to drain an enemy's energy shield in order to bypass their defenses and slip one of these other weapons in. Even then, it will require something akin to the scattershot missile, but perhaps more like a scattershot antimatter warhead. Otherwise, the projectiles can be shot down by weapons. Even an antimatter blast is only mildly destructive in space unless the antimatter comes into direct contact with the target--sure the energy released has a lot of force, but without contact it just pushes you away. Come to think of it, detonating even one of a cluster of antimatter weapons before impact might be enough to push you out of the flight path of the others...

Point is, the particular needs of space travel make most (if not all) weapons of the current era useless. There will be some dicking around when it comes to orbital craft, but once the energy shield comes into play, it's all a big standoff. And they're already making strides with cold plasma shields.

 

[lrkun]

And they're already making strides with cold plasma shields.

With respect to the cold plasma shields, please cite your reference, because in doing so, will atleast allow us to have a glimpse of your point of view. Thanks.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

A small technical note to the OP: Remove &feature=related and also try using a ShowMore (maybe for all the videos except the first).

 

[cri8r]

just google "nasa plasma shield" and you'll come up with something like this:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11623-deflector-shields-could-protect-future-astronauts.html

Wow! did I kill the thread? nothing in a while...
Wasn't trying to be a killjoy...just call'em like i see'm