What do you think Space Warfare will actually be like? Thread

you mean through open space ... it's possible ... there are some crazy efficient propulsion systems being developed ... the coolest i saw was the "solar sail" ...

The idea of it just seems so ... historically cyclical and right ...

N0dachi wrote:

Assaultman67 wrote:... Maybe -_- ... OK FINE HE'S RIGHT ... I didn't think about the planet itself moving through space ... if you are taking the ship's magnitude of velocity with respect to the planet ... the magnitude of velocity doesn't change ... but on a "galactic" coodinate system ... it does ... damn vector mechanics and its relative coordinate systems!

But changing the direction that your ship in space is still a very big reason as to why they do that ...

to change the direction of your velocity without a celestial body would require a impulse (an impulse being generated by your thrusters ... thrusters take energy) ... and if you were say turning 90 degrees (let alone 180), that impulse would be freaking huge if you have 40 tons traveling 1/2 the speed of light ...

That is wrong, due to the gravity of the planet youll get pulled towards it. By increasing the altitude towards the planet you increase the absolute velocity.

yea ... no ... that's not really quite right LOL ... say your coordinate axis is the planet itself ... any velocity you gain (kinetic energy) as you approach the planet will be taken away as you leave the planet due to conservation of energy ... Potential energy gets converted into kinetic energy as it approaches the planet which is converted back into potential energy as you leave

but if you take into account that the planet is moving and you are using a "galactic" reference point ... Then the sling shot maneuver makes sense

Its all completely point of reference ...

Edited by: Assaultman67

You're accelerating towards the hole ... that doesn't conserve energy

(even though this would be the right answer ... kinda ... )

The rotation of particles around a planet itself may or may not help you ... its dependant on how fast the particulate is going relative to you ... if they are going faster it will push your ship ... slower it will slow your ship down ...

Yea sorry my example wasn't that great but the point is there. But note: I said "massive gravitational pull", so if you are going at the black hole at the right angle, it's gravity will "sling-shot" you. You can try an experiment by getting a hollow plastic ball, and make a "whirl-pool" effect in some water, then send the ball towards it. If you hit it right (and at the right speed), the ball MAY be guided by the whirl effect and then launched some distance away; either relevant to your distance when you sent the ball to the whirl-wind or a distance close to that). Yea, my examples are a little crude, I know

Edited by: Toyoka

On another point i doubt atomic bombs will be used on planets as seen in Sins of a Solar empire. the fallout and explosion would likely destroy anything (resources i.e population, industry) you were fighting to capture. In the event you actually want assured destruction dropping a twelve ton telephone pole shaped piece of pig iron would do the job of a nuclear bomb on planet for a fraction of the price, and minus the fallout.

of course you have to take into account that spaceships are very fragile, and it probably wouldn't take as much to neutralize or destroy them as say something on earth. (like a tank or something)

I agree, no one wants a nuclear war, it destroys whatever it was you were fighting for in the first place. This was the reason the USSR and USA tried to stay out of each other's business if they could.

Oh and North Korea is developing more nuclear weapons, and Iran has recently began launching satelites. END OF THE WORLD.

I don't think you understand what total war means. The might of the world powers means the end of the world if it's fully mobilized. Quite literally, and it has for a while now. The idea isn't that we use the weapons (nukes now or whatever comes next), we just hope that the MAD scares each side enough that they won't make the first move. Robert McNamara has described a number of occasions that we were extremely close to launching nukes during the "cold" war. We aren't being pressured that close any time soon. It's a different world since WWI. And as the playing field is leveled economically, this is less and less likely.

I never said war itself would end. I'm not saying it never will either, it's a pretty worthless thing to predict.

Since we are on the subject of total war, quite plausible to happen mind you! Lets theories its implications...
Lots of big assed space ships being built, to fly to destinations they may not reach in years.. Forever war comes to mind here
BTW for anyone whos read Forever war, do you think shells (armoured suits used to withstand the massive G forces that comes with high speed space manoeuvrings and travel) are plausible?

That would be pretty cool if those were actual statistics. We don't have sanity percentages.

There's a reason psychology is so noncommittal when it tries to predict things, people are more complicated than that. For example, you have to keep in mind if a tiny country with 5 nukes isn't going to take on, say The US with 9,960. And even small states with big allies can't initiate a firestorm because their powerful friends will not be pleased (the main reason North Korea isn't a legitimate threat to anyone but themselves). It's also unrealistic for dangerous states to organize enough to build them (legally or otherwise) if they are in fact chaotic enough to even be anything to worry about. Even now, nukes are hard to make, not to mention impossible to hide. If fear kept us in line during the Cuban missile crisis it will right now too.

I totally agree with you ... of course i can't factor for that kinda info into a formula (let alone obtain all the information neccessary)

i was just throwing out some numbers showing how an increase of nuclear arms and the people who control them can lead to the increase of them being used ... as well as how a very small population of "crazy leaders" could fuck up the whole thing

as more people gain access to the ability to launch nuclear warheads, the closer we get to some nuclear weapon being launched ... and really it only would take one ... if one nuclear weapon were to be launched, there would be another in retaliation (maybe more than one) ... and what about the airspace the nuclear weapons go over?

I guarantee you NORAD would be shitting brix is a nuclear missle from any country went over america ... and thats how all countries would respond if a nuke went over their heads ... (sure they can calculate the trajectory and they know its likely not to hit them ... but on the other hand, holy fuck a nuke just flew over! LOL)

If a nuclear weapon were to go off today ... it would be either be mutual destruction or one hell of a second cold war (considering there are about 10 countries with nukes) ... and with a second cold war means a second arms race ... which means someone will lose them (the US had several "broken arrows" and there are some "unaccounted for" nuclear weapons after the soviet union fell ...

Edited by: Assaultman67