When do you realistically expect to see the militarization of

>>33122882
It's currently too expensive to be fighting in space. So, not in the near future.

In 50 years at the most.

Technically we already have with satellites.

It's exciting and terrifying.

>look at what we've done in just the last 50

Space has already been militarized with vast amounts of reconnaissance equipment, the next step I expect is an actually working 'star wars' ABM system

>>33122882
not until space colonies are self sufficient.

Any conflicts would be fought by the colonizing nations on Earth. Colonies wouldn't rebel until they did not need materials from Earth to exist.

Other than that, there'd have to be some objective/target in space. Even if it was space/orbit based weapons

>>33122882
>What do you expect space combat to look like?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW-WROYdTP8

>>33122882

If China and the US go to war in the South China Sea, don't be surprised if GPS and BDS go down for a year or two.

>>33122882
Whenever colonisation of the moon and civilian space travel is a thing then space terrorism and pirates will become a reality.

File: IF_LilDoctor_Ilo_120402_HERO_RS+copy.jpg (880KB, 1500x638px) Image search: [Google]

880KB, 1500x638px

>>33122882
When the space bugs come for us.

>>33122882
>enemy fired a missile at us
>estimated time till impact: three months
>taking evasive action

As it stands we don't have a particularly efficient system by which to launch and maintain military spacecraft, so assuming SpaceX or something in that vein takes off all early military action in space is going to be just lobbing rockets at shit from really far away.

File: 253946.jpg (120KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1024x768px

>>33122882
Just watch Planetes.

>>33123330
I don't get this.

We have stealth craft already that roughly require the enemy to get into fairly close range before sensors pick them up.

By the time we are doing space combat, that will just get better (stealth).

Space warships won't see each other at millions of miles apart, unless of course one ship has its engine / radiators facing the other, or if the enemy very luckily has a big telescopic camera pointing in the exact direction where you are and you transit a light source..

Space combat is submarines on passive search hoping to get lucky.

>>33123265
>space terrorism
Not unless we institute a muslim quota for crews or something like that
>pirates
Lolno. Doesn't work on so many levels.

File: 1463639317442.jpg (615KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

615KB, 2000x1333px

>>33123410
>>Space combat is submarines on passive search hoping to get lucky.

This is a fucking scary thing.

File: death_korps_of_krieg_by_sunnykoda.png (381KB, 1024x475px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 1024x475px

>>33122882
Ships will have to be armored so that the Kessler effect doesn't cause one destroyed ship to destroy the whole fleet. The ships will effectively have infinite range, but fighters may still be useful if they are stealth as a way to do deliver missiles and railgun shots close up without being seen beforehand. Long range missiles will likely be capable of performing evasive maneuvers to avoid point defense systems, since those defensive systems will have much longer range as will. There might even be point defense systems on the missiles to intercept other intercepting missiles.

File: SBY_interdimensional_submarine_UX-01.jpg (65KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 600x450px

>>33123410
Did someone say space submarine?

>>33123410
Nothing you do is going to prevent you from skewing light in space though, and if you're within a reasonable boundary of our local space (say from the Sun to the asteroid belt) we're going to pick you up from light interference EVENTUALLY.

>>33123468
2202 is out soon

File: Yang Wenli tea.jpg (42KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 640x480px

>>33122882

File: 1486792498685.jpg (63KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 960x720px

>>33123468

>What do you expect space combat to look like?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhKWeGXduzs&t=159s

File: Deimos destroyed.webm (1MB, 888x500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 888x500px

>>33123603

>>33123410
There is no stealth in space.

You might make yourself hard to detect via radar, but you can't hide yourself from all aspects from IR cameras with detection ranges measured in light-hours.

>>33123628
this. Expanse is brettygud/10, although the ranges and speeds for most scenes are condensed/slowed so the viewer can make sense of it all.

Also, not nearly enough radiators.

Directed energy weapons, fires a big, directed EMP at the general direction of the enemy fleet to disable their weapons and ships.

For actual damage probably just 40mm AP shells loaded with shrapnel fired into the hull of the enemy ship, and detonating the shrapnel inside destroying all life onboard without major hull damage.

Also, there would be a lot of ships going thousands of KM/H whipping past each other at full speed, spending more time turning around to charge the enemy again than actually firing upon them.

This is a probable engagement.
>your ship whips past another cruiser
>by the time you realized yo passed your enemy, they're too far gone for you to catch up.
>but you both for some reason, decide to turn and face eachother again.
>this happens another 10 times
>instead of charging again, your ship fires a directed energy weapon at the enemy ship 2000KM away.
>they decide to launch fulls speed into shot
>the ship is a full momentum with no power, diving into the depths of space.

or

>ship loses power before i charges at full speed
>Yours spend 30 minutes approaching their ship
>you unloaded a volley of 40mm at their hull
>send boarding party to double tap everyone on board
>wait for garbage ship to come claim the remains.

File: MissileSpam.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

I think there would be an over-reliance on missiles, since they would be the most difficult thing to intercept. If they're launched close enough to the enemy, they wouldn't have enough time to avoid them.

>>33123855
What game is this?

But what about weaponized satelites and other orbital platforms?

That is probably the next stepping stone before space warfare.

I'm talking about low orbit cannons, as well as ODST Type deployed troops launched from stations in a geosynchronous orbit

>>33123864
space elevator to deliver tungsten rods for dropping, shuttles or too cost inefficient right now

>>33123869
The only problem I see with a space elevator is, a spike, for all intents a purposes, jutting from the earth while he earth spins.

Would t this cause the elevator to bend and eventually snap?

How could a space elevator work correctly?

>>33122882
I'd say however long it is requires to start reaching 1/10, or even 1/2 light speed. Though 60 years ago telling someone about a handheld computer for instant porn was a fucking mindfuck. Telling someone 70 years ago about us going to the moon was bullshit. So who knows, maybe we'll figure out a way to mini-terraform mars by 2100, or colonize with completely enclosed facilities. Maybe we'll send radio signals to nearby planets enough to get a response, and by the early-mid 2100s discover other life does indeed exist. Technology advances so fucking quick now, it's seemingly impossible to wrap my head around what could possibly exist 500, 200, or even a hundred years from now. Just because people from 100 years ago can't begin to fathom the technology we have now.

It'll be glorious.

>>33123873
cable, not a tube or shaft. A cart pulls itself up a cable or set of cables

File: Misty satellite signature reduction.jpg (33KB, 500x354px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 500x354px

>>33123638
>you can't hide yourself from all aspects from IR cameras with detection ranges measured in light-hours.
>all-aspect
>detection range in light-hours
Pick one.
The latter is basically a space telescope, meaning you have to get lucky and point it in the right direction at the right time to catch what you're looking for. The former is something more like SBIRS, which needs to be a hell of a lot closer to work.

Detection doesn't work the way the retards at Project Rho think it does. You can't just snap your fingers and detect everything for several AU around in an instant. Astronomers and space agencies have been performing asteroid survey after survey for DECADES and they STILL haven't found all the rocks in the inner solar system (rocks which are much bigger than your typical spacecraft, by the way).

Nevermind that the NRO is already employing stealth satellites.

>>33123441
I dont think you know that the definitions of terrorists and pirates are.

>Want so bad to be in space
>Likelihood of it happening in your lifetime is dismal as a 21 year old
>Afraid of impending death

Please let cryogenics advance so I can freeze myself

>>33123908
they exist today
http://www.alcor.org/

$80,000 I think

>>33123628
reminds me of those psycho smart bombs from voyager.

>>33123873
Its supposed to be a flexible cable with a counterweight on the end. The main problem is that an earth elevator would need a cable stronger than anything we can make right now. It should be doable with current tech on Mars though.

As soon as the cost of launches reaches a point that spy satellites from non world-superpowers are a reality.

North Korea just successfully launched their first satellite, it's only a matter of time before deorbiting enemy spacecraft is a nessesary. I give it ten more years.

File: shipvsship8.webm (2MB, 1280x768px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x768px

>>33123861
http://zillo7.itch.io/tier-1

>>33123908
I say in 40 years commercial space travel will be a thing.

>>33123628
#deimos:nvr4gt

>>33123898
You are comparing cold rocks to space furnaces, even computer based spaceships need some heat and even a candle in space contrasts heavily against the near zero of space

File: 1483728574585.jpg (135KB, 780x775px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 780x775px

>>33123755
>Also, there would be a lot of ships going thousands of KM/H whipping past each other at full speed, spending more time turning around to charge the enemy again than actually firing upon them.

What? Like jousting?

The best, fiction, I've read so far regarding space travel and space warfare would have to be the Revelation Space series by Alastair Reynolds. He goes a bit overboard in some of the books with god mode weapons but for the most part it's really good hardcore sci-fi. No FTL travel, realistic ship designs and an interesting take on how human societies evolve when spread over different star systems.

All in all, damn good reading, I highly recommend it.

>>33123898
Spaceships are now rocks that never ever performs burns or radiate heat.

You can play children of a dead earth right now.

File: CHODE.jpg (48KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 1280x720px

>>33122882

If Children of a death Earth is something that can be taken into account for predicting how would space battles would go...

space combat is kinda depressing:

>"Indeed, the ideal tactic is to shoot many small missiles and have them converge from different directions. There is no realistic defense against this. Missiles are even less dodge-able than k-slugs and they're much heavier. Shoot it down with point defense or blind it with lasers, and you still have a gaping hole through your hull. Fail to disable even a single one, and you have a nuclear warhead going off point blank."

>" You don't. It's an obvious consequence of missiles: if your battleship can be obliterated by a tiny missile, and there's no real defense against such a thing, you don't build battleships--you build missiles and send them against enemy infrastructure. Obvious secondary effect: War between such factions is attritional, and at most only one major space-based faction survives."

>>33122882
Human militarization - Never. With the medical issues plaguing long term space occupation, we won't waste time making any large scale non planetary involved advances in technology. I personally believe the mars travel will be the furthest we ever go unless a breakthrough in man made gravity is discovered.

Drone militarization? - Probably never as well, as the effort to build, maintain, and operate a space military drone when the only possible targets would be other satellites (anything in atmosphere would be easier dealt with inside of the atmosphere) means no one will bother on either side.

>>33123898
>You can't just snap your fingers and detect everything for several AU around in an instant

Yes you can... with spaceships.

"A full spherical sky search is 41,000 square degrees. A wide angle lens will cover about 100 square degrees (a typical SLR personal camera is about 1 square degree); you'll want overlap, so call it 480 exposures for a full sky search, with each exposure taking about 350 megapixels.

Estimated exposure time is about 30 seconds per 100 square degrees of sky looking for a magnitude 12 object (which is roughly what the drive I spec'd out earlier would be). So, 480 / 2 is 240 minutes, or about 4 HOURS for a complete sky survey. This will require signal processing of about 150 gigapizels per two hours, and take a terabyte of storage per sweep."

>>33123024
If they are blowing up satellites in a non-nuclear war then don't expect those kinds of services to come back for decade. All sorts of shit is going to be flying around the planet at dangerous speeds. It may probably also cause collateral damage to other unrelated satellites by accident.

>>33124066
>Revelation Space series by Alastair Reynolds
will check it out.
>>33124066
there's probably drones in place now, ready to take out key satellites of other nations. Even if they basically just flying claymore mines.

>>33124019
Well, I don't imagine 2 hostile ships are gonna pull up next to each other cruising in at an easy 30 knots? They're gonna move as fast as possible to avoid being hit. Although, they might not joust each other, but maybe broadside each other, and slowly concave in a clockwise manner.

>>33123957
Whoa, that's quite good. Did dev die or something? Don't care, want it anyway.

>>33122882

>when
It won't happen till there's something worth fighting for in space. I'd say it's going to kick off not too long after we figured out how to extract resources from the asteroids
>resource rich asteroids all around us
>treaties say no-one can own them
>private sector figures out how to mine them
>white collar wars become international conflicts on the ground
>eventually, someone, somewhere is going to send missiles at a mining operation
>space defenses are invented
>everything escalates from there
I also believe that resource extraction is going to be the thing that leads us to true off-world colonies. The lessons we would learn from long term mining operations teach us everything we need to set up a self-sufficient colony. Never underestimate our capacity for innovation when there's profit to be made.
>what would it look like
nearly all conventional weapons are basically useless in space due to the issues of heat dissipation in a vacuum, combined with the sheer speeds and distances likely involved in space to space warfare. I would say it would mostly be point defense systems and long range missile spam, with the missiles being self targeting, self guiding, etc.
I envision future warships being bare minimum vessels with skeleton crews, flying around with fuck-huge armory of ready-to-launch missiles. Think of it like a "missile barge". 5-8 crew on a flying gas can, hooking up to modular barrage units stacked up with missiles, pushing them into striking range and firing salvos before ditching the empty rig and heading home to pick up another one.

File: maxresdefault (4).jpg (75KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1920x1080px

>>33124063
>>33123855
A barrage of missiles is nearly as bad for you as your opponent.

Once the battle is over you've just created a minefield of debris and shrapnel flying in every direction at immense speeds that'll rip right through your ship.

Hell even the ship you just destroyed is probably more dangerous now than when it was shooting at you since unlike in movies and video games the debris wont just gently float around but be sent off in all directions at dangerous speeds until it hits something.

>>33122951
>not until space colonies are self sufficient.
They don't need to be self-sufficient. They only need to be economically or strategically important.

File: FighterLaunch.webm (617KB, 1280x768px) Image search: [Google]

617KB, 1280x768px

>>33124153
Nope, I'm not dead yet. I'm just at a point where it's more difficult to add things than before.

>>33122882
When glass and ceramics replace metals and electrical fields can stop metal chucks from hitting them in space.

>>33124230

Yes, but if your ship is 100km away and the debris disperses in a random spherical pattern it would be like trying to hit a mosquito with a grain of sand.

The cloud simply wouldn't be that dense to be important.

In close orbit might actually be a problem, since distances are still somewhat Earthlike and the debris can actually have enough density to be something to be taken into account.

File: 1470973850803.png (411KB, 500x503px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 500x503px

>>33124230
>he didn't read the dev blog for children of a dead earth that explains everything

>>33122882
they won't have a clear back, front, top and bottom. thats for sure. sci-fi ships based on ocean vessels are stupid

>>33124272
Even if you didnt kill your self with the debris you may have killed a civilian transport full of children on a school trip to the moon in 5 years.

>>33124296
compared to natural space borne objects moving at fast speeds, thats not really a huge risk

>>33124296

>a school trip to the moon in 5 years.

That would happen in LEO, after that the kessel syndrome is a meme.

And even that, you can give some armor to your ships to have protection against <1cm debris if you need, the cost of deltaV is suprinsingly not that high with modern materials.

File: A battleship.jpg (94KB, 1024x716px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1024x716px

>>33122882
>When do you realistically expect to see the militarization of space?
When Humanity becomes a type one civilization(~2250)
>What do you expect space combat to look like?
Fusion powered laser carriers shooting each other from interplanetary distances(imagine pic related but with lasers).

>>33124361
>target enemy using a light weapon from a planet away
>laser takes 3 minutes to get there
>woops they moved

>>33124381

That can be said for all space weapons(except missiles).

You never try to face out your enemy in less than 300,000km.

>>33124381

movement takes fuel and fuel is a little expensive in space.

>>33124381
>/k/tard not taking into account that the ships have AI systems capable of correcting the aim

>>33124389
>Lazer fires
>Ship moves unpredictable
>AI corrects lazer mid shot?

>>33124387
compared to using lasers at close range that would hit instantly? even battleships never fought with 3 minute delays on hitting their target. seems pointless. not to mention any tracking of the enemy has a 3 minute delay as well, at best.

>>33124388
Not nearly as expensive as getting your capital ship shredded.

>>33124388
Im assuming fuel is not an issue, since they're firing gigantic lasers in the first place which would take a tremendous amount of energy. compared to firing that weapon, moving a ship would be effortless.

File: 1484056436592.jpg (326KB, 1100x812px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 1100x812px

>>33123468
space typhoon!

>>33124396
that's not how AI of spaceships work anon.
there is more than one laser on the ship(over 50 at least)
and the ship can make slight movements since it would cause structural damage if it were doing otherwise so even if the ship is moving at high speed the battleship can shoot in the approximate area.

The way I see it it's mainly two types of weapons that will be effective once/when we actually reach the point of space warfare being an actual reality.

1. Like many anons have pointed out already - guided munitions. Most likely a missile or similar armed with a warhead and enough intelligence to actually make course corrections on the way to its target. These will be nature be expensive and subject to countermeasures but if not avoided or destroyed should probably be the best bet of reliably hitting the target.

2. Saturation fire. The exact opposite of no 1. Instead of spending money on guidance and propulsion you make cheap and preferably fast firing weapons. Lasers, railguns or old fashioned projectile weapons. Locate the area of space your enemy is likely to be in and FILL THAT SHIT UP. Needless to say, your average chance to hit will be lower compared to guided munitions but your dumb slugs also care much less about enemy countermeasures.

>>33124426
for the other 49 lazers that miss can hit the surface of the planet the ship is at? Or a space station behind it? Or an allied ship nearby???

>>33124431
see >>33123755

>>33123410
Stealth isnt a game changer. As stealth gets better expect detection tech to get better also.

File: Minitokyo.Anime.Wallpapers.Banner.of.the.Stars_207699.jpg (98KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1024x768px

considering the ease of countering weapons fired with huge delays a planet away, I'd imagine the meat of fighting would be knife fighting in smaller, nimble ships firing kinetic weapons.

larger ships could still be firing from the rear, to give the enemy something to worry about and hope for lucky hits. like old fashioned artillery

File: strana09SD King William.jpg (428KB, 1519x1182px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 1519x1182px

>>33124424
Be 2,000 years into the future. Ships look like subs. Killing each other from 5 million km away.

>>33122882
>"CIWS"
>torpedoes
>"production facilities" aka it just gives birth to infinite ships and infinite ammo!

Nice creativity, fuckstick. I bet you think they're gonna use AR-15s in space too.

>>33124462
CQC in speehs makes my dick rock hard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhKWeGXduzs

>>33124439
it looks like a line with 2-3 lasers in a circle each one of them ~20 meters apart.
lasers will disperse before they manage to hit anything other than the enemy ship.

>When do you realistically expect to see the militarization of space?
20 years ago, spy satellites have already changed how wars are started and conducted.

>What do you expect space combat to look like?
For now: surface-to-orbit missiles to take out satellites.
Later orbit-to-orbit missiles to take out satellites.
Eventually: relativistic kinetic weapons.

Unless some idiot smuggles a Smith & Wesson onto the ISS /k/ will be disappointed by space war.

In children of a dead earth lasers are limited to 100km but they still wreck anything short of a heavy micromissile swarm.

Meanwhile rail and coilguns are bugged to be thousands of times more efficient than in reality but they're still shit tier.

>>33124063

This

File: Hyperion.jpg (299KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 1920x1080px

>>33124424
>>33123468

>>33124564
>>33124471
>>33124424
>>33123468
You do realize that stealth in space is physically impossible?

>>33123455
>Railgun shots
>Upclose
Nothowthisworks.png

>>33124458
Stealth in space is a fucking meme. There's no way to do it. Even counting stupid invisibility cloaks or whatever, you cannot possibly block all emissions and radiation, you just can't. You can reduce the profile of your ships outputting heat and radiation, but then it's going to show up as a reflective object, which can be seen on radar as well.

Essentially stealth in space won't mean shit. Anyone with proficient long range scanners will see you long before you can meme about stealth to them. And then they'll cut you a new asshole with a railgun.

File: toyota.jpg (35KB, 540x449px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 540x449px

>>33124485
that entire scene at the end reminded me of this

you'd think they'd have armor that could protect against weaponry like that though. at least reaction plates or something

File: loghmyconquestistheseao.jpg (109KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1280x720px

>>33124571

The Hyperion isn't stealth.

Spy satellites may use Vantablack

>>33124508
If true, the Arabs would dominate big time.

>>33124542
Depends on the weight of the rail gun slugs, tho. The 8mm rail gun is deadly, because it fires heavier slugs than the 11mm one for some reason. It pretty much saws the ship apart.

Also, lasers aren't limited to 100km in game. Look at some user created laser battleships. There is a death beam cruiser with twenty or so 20GW purple lasers that fries ships in seconds at some 500km range.
Even with beam dispersion, that laser is deadly as fuck.

File: ChoDE.jpg (39KB, 540x338px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 540x338px

>>33122882
lots of waiting around until some punk drone puts a metric shitload of one gram steel washers through my hull at 6000 meters per second.

>>33124571
http://toughsf.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-hydrogen-steamer-stealth-spaceship.html

Do you even know how telescopes work? Do you know why your phone camera sucks at imaging distant objects?

>>33125000
The 286mm coilgun and 8mm railgun are super broken in chode right now.

Next patch will fix it.

by the way, coilguns work best with lower acceleration and large parasitic mass over many stages. Railguns work best with 1g projectiles.

>>33124542
laser damage is borked in chode, it ablates way too fast.

>>33124601
Like I said in the last thread we had about this. Delta V. The more armor you pack onto a ship, the more fuel it takes to make it perform the same movements and maneuvers. Too much armor saps range and even time/fuel for attitude adjustment, so extra armor makes you slow to react or extremely wasteful with fuel.

It looks like in the show, close combat is rare, with most engagements being missile-fests from long range. After all, very few space battles involve cover like that space station, so MCRN and Earth don't really equip their ships for armor against even close range CIWS, since the enemy will never be close to actually use them like that anyway. Armor is worthless anyway when a single railgun shot can penetrate every surface in your ship.

>>33124079
>magnitude 12 object
lol.

>>33124044
Good think about space that unlike in atmosphere there is no drag there and you can travel infinite amount of range by inertia.

>>33125472
Aaaaaand you can't maneuver. Good job being useless.

File: Lasership.jpg (198KB, 1920x1017px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1920x1017px

>>33124542
No they're not. You can edit the engagement range in the weapon editor.

This thing cooks or burns to a crisp everything up to 1000km range, and could engage at much higher range if ony the game let us do it, despite appaling efficiency and beamforming quality. Keep in mind high efficiency emiters and fiber laser with much superior beamforming quality than the solid state ones implemented in game, are already there in some lab or another, but the author won't include anything he doesn't have the full equations.

>>33125584
They're artificially limited to 1000km.

>>33125584
>length: 725m
>mass: 21000 tons

>>33125607
Yes they are

>>33125706
The thing is flimsy as fuck.

>>33124090
>and probably also cause damage to other satalites
>t. never been to space before

Dont you have mixed fractions homework to be doing?

File: 1484341470527.webm (2MB, 1136x640px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1136x640px

Literally no one in this thread can into orbital mechanics or delta V

Future space combat will probably be boring as fuck.

Months of positioning and carefully managed burns, followed by barrages and counter-barrages of missiles and anti-missile-missiles, with some EWAR and Microwave/Laser DEWs thrown in to fuck with sensors. Given the vast distances involved (100000s of Kilometers) its likely that the vast majority of missiles will miss or be shot down, and space wars will thus be relatively bloodless affairs where most losses come from spacecraft running out of missiles or fuel and surrendering.

Of course, this is with the tech we know about today; for example, if the memedrive turns out to be real then we could very well have Star Trek-tier wars. Its likely our conjecture is as wrong as the pulp mags of the early 20th century.

>>33124294
Front is over their, top is up there, bottom is down there, ocean vessels are brilliant.

>>33125584
Oh look, the laser fan boy made a game.
Daily reminder lasers are shit tier weapons and one of the best ever made is a literal laser pointer.

File: Peacekeeper-missile-testing[1].jpg (761KB, 3000x2272px) Image search: [Google]

761KB, 3000x2272px

Aren't MIRVs orbital weapons, technically?

God damn some of these people are fucking dumb

>tfw /k/ has yet to realize the dangers of lead poisoning while they put bulleta up their ass while jacking it to trap porn

>>33123265
>>33123509
>>33123638
>>33123755
>>33123902
>>33124012
>>33124066
>>33124079
>>33124090
>>33124230
>>33124296
>>33124396
>>33124399
>>33124439
>>33124462
>>33124508
>>33124571
>>33124595
You are all idiots and should kill yourselves

I'm going to make this simple for everyone.
We don't know.
And we aren't going to find out until it happens, you see space is an interesting place and we don't know anything about it, we things we do but they're just assertions really, that said we can really only go with what we have, which isn't much.

>>33125967
>we don't know anything about it
Factualy wrong

>>33125967
You are added to the list

>>33125948
Actually the dev seems to have a not unsignificant missile/railgun boner

>>33125964
Can you please elaborate your claim before you make assumptions?

>>33125828
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0b3K7kNoZg&ab_channel=EnigmaHood
and yes i understand delta v.

File: 0613ML0025880020301760E01_DXXX.jpg (72KB, 1408x1200px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1408x1200px

Mars militarization when?

Make Mars Great Again.

By the time we make it to large scale space engagements, jamming technology will have advanced to the point that any sort of guided missile or targeting system will be completely fucking useless. Even communications via radio will be useless because of the extreme level of jamming, ships will probably only be able to communicate via light signals during battles, which necessitates well organized formations to prevent collision. Engagements will be taking place between 10-40 light seconds, and the only realistic way to fight at that distance is large caliber beam weaponry fired en masse at the general location of the enemy.

Whoever has the most canons and most ships probably just wins through sheer volume of fire, so you'll probably be looking at ships where the entire front is just tens of beam projectors, and fleets consist of hundreds and hundreds of the smallest ship possible with the largest number of projectors. Some will probably be drones, but most will have some form of human crew on board because the signal jamming is so intense.

It will just become a game of who can get all of their projectors on target first.

>>33126215
You are added to the list.

>>33126230
Git gud.

>>33126215
>I wish the future to be Legend Of The Galactic Heroes

>>33126260
I for one, welcome that future.

We only have to get through one mass nuclear holocaust, a few hundred years of corrupt bureaucracy over space colonies, some more massacres, another nuclear holocaust, the creation of a galactic empire, a few generations of eugenics, a mass exodus, and the -1,357 battles of Tiamat to get the best future possible.

>>33122882
The CIWS shouldn't be paired up like that, otherwise a sexy design.

File: 1355975237095.gif (150KB, 120x98px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 120x98px

>>33123755
I am ok with this.

>>33122882
> militarization of space?
space is actually only now (2000 and onwards) being civilianized
> space combat
super-stealthy nuclear powered combined reaction and ion drive ships with super-fast nuclear missiles and super-powerful laser based CIWS
ion for maneuver, nuclear reaction engine for combat
> inb4 no stealth in space
physics haven't been abolished last I checked. take a carbon-black sail, chill it to background, and you'll only be detectable by starfield obscuration or by a radar

>>33124079
>magnitude 12
>Pluto is 13.65
>CLAIM:"I could totally see a space shuttle orbital maneuvering thruster at Pluto!"
>sky scan to look for stealth spaceships couldn't even see Pluto
Charon is 15.55
Eris, another dwarf planet is 18.7

>>33124389
>thinks you can even aim a laser that accurately
I bet you don't even shoot 1MOA.


A laser is a physical system that can only point within a certain tolerance, and that is before vibrations and other shit throws it off.

To top it off you have Gaussian beam dispersion which means all lasers will spread out over a larger area as distance increases, no matter how good you build the laser.

>>33124431
You must already have enough saturation of fire with guided munitions due to point defense, target maneuvering and lots of other factors.

If your enemy is worth shooting once, they are worth shooting more than once.

>>33126044
Probably because the posts he selected either

>lol space pirates and terrists
>lets do lots of repeated high speed passes for no rasin
>stealth won't ever exist in space, I read it on the internet

File: crusader.jpg (189KB, 754x1200px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 754x1200px

>>33124583
Well the railgun has effectively infinite range too, but firing it from a long distance away will give the enemy ample time to dodge.

>>33124431
> FILL THAT SHIT UP
fill what up, nigger? space is big

>>33126660
>thinks you can even aim a laser that accurately
Accuracy is not the problem,dispersion is.
>that is before vibrations and other shit throws it off.
Can you please name a thing that can throw off a laser with pin point accuracy?

>>33126772
I hope you're firing guided munitions because at long range dispersion is a significant factor.

>>33126802
>Can you please name a thing that can throw off a laser with pin point accuracy?
even pin point can be very inaccurate at long ranges.

How about that cooling turbopump right next to the laser. You're saying it imparts no vibration? What about the tiny motors used to align the optics, those aren't perfect.

>>33122882
After we reach a type 2 civilization.
But there won't be a need to militarize space unless we meet aggressive space gooks.

File: Klingon_Bird-of-Prey.jpg (22KB, 757x363px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 757x363px

>>33124571
>How to stealth planes
>How to stealth surface ships
Quit being retard.

>>33126390
>physics haven't been abolished last I checked. take a carbon-black sail, chill it to background, and you'll only be detectable by starfield obscuration or by a radar
From a given direction, yes. From other directions, no. Once someone is dumb enough to start trying to stealth stuff, relatively cheap scanning platforms will necessitate all-aspect stealth, which is not a thing.

>>33127712
>cheap scanning platforms
nigga you dumb

>>33127712
> relatively cheap
literal thousands of big-ass telescopes to guard one planet... and they can't see shit until the enemy is between them and the planet already anyway.
good luck, faggot.
also all-aspect stealth in space is indeed possible, because inertia.
you do your burns very far out, where the enemy can't see them, and you coast in for the attack on a nice free-return trajectory, or, using gravity braking from a moon, you get into a nice loose orbit around your target
and then you wait. years if need be, farting hydrogen gas very discreetly once in a while

>>33127818
>literal thousands of big-ass telescopes to guard one planet... and they can't see shit until the enemy is between them and the planet already anyway.
Lemme get this right. You can't get the number of platforms required correct, you can't their orbits correct(guarding just one planet, lol), you can't get their size correct, and since you're defining 'them' as a single location, you're visualizing them all in one location.

please don't reproduce

>>33128275
please, explain in what way I am wrong

>>33122882
Space "battles" will be the most boring form of combat for spectators.

It'll be long range missile and anti-missile combat.

>>33128321
present day naval battles are missile vs anti-missile, and they're anything but boring
sure, the maneuver phase is long and looks like nothing's happening, but the actual shooting is an extremely short and violent show

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUKs3XYeIq4

>>33128414
don't watch this clown
he hated the f-35

>>33128462
Sounds pretty smart.

>>33128562
he belabors a point about inertia for like 15 minutes
not so great

>>33126703
And considering my post that was tagged contains none of these, and just the rationale that we won't ever have giant space ships, what's your excuse now?

>>33123410
IR detection is very, very hard to avoid in space.

>>33125964
>I'll call these people dumb while simultaneously selecting posts involving both sides of the argument therefore all arguments and people are fucking dumb except for me because I don't actually have an opinion because I am actually retarded.

>>33128933
well there is no reason to make it bigger than it needs to be, but you do have economy of scale and the fact that not every conflict is total war, nor are conflicts eternal.

So when conflicts do break you will be stuck with legacy equipment, technology and doctrine that was designed for the previous conflict.

Is this you?
>>33124066
I'd say this post is just unnecessarily pessimistic with overuse of the absolute modifier never.

Saying it will be slow or far future is different from saying never. And we already have kinetic interceptors that can attack satellites and a dozen kilowatt laser can already damage a satellite. So we have space weapons already, but most of them are terrestrial to space in nature.

>>33122882

I hope not. Stop fighting wars, you fucking retards. I wish we were like Star Trek where humans weren't giant cunts.

>>33128957
IR detection is very, very dim.
IR detection is also very, very poor resolution.

http://www.astronomynotes.com/telescop/s7.htm

>>33129041
which timeline did you come from where
>humans exist
>star trek exists
>humans aren't cunts
Because I've only found timelines where a maximum of two are true.

>>33123932

I'm still slightly confused by the logic behind giving the ordinance that much intelligence.

>>33129134
don't you want your bullets to be mean?

>>33129134
processing power is cheap

if you're giving it image recognition, navigation, orbital mechanics and cryptography, well why the fuck not?

>>33123403
So comfy.

>>33129025
Yes it is. And it may be pessimistic, but sadly that's just how I see it after they established that a year~ish is the most a astronaut should be in a space due to severe medical impairments that last years if not permanently such as cranial and eyesight issues. These cannot be resolved without-

A. constant shuffling of crew meaning having to remain close to a inhabited body and being a logistical nightmare. Now one could call this similar to say the navy going out on deployment and back, but if we have this tech we are sure to be traveling around much farther than anything land/sea based.

B. Development of artificial gravity.

If B. then yes we are now capable of pretty much anything, but this is something that will be probably the hardest obstacle to overcome.

We will for sure have ships going to and from say Mars in the future, but when you say stuck with legacy equipment during conflicts you are then assuming that not only do they somehow develop this kind of tech without our knowledge which as you are aware of is very hard to pull off and that more than 1 or 2 countries will be capable of this kind of tech.

If we WERE to develop into nations that have space capability it will be just as it is now and only a small select few will be capable of it while others either never see the tech or are extremely far behind us. This could lead to conflict, but if say the US and China are the ones with this tech, chances are if one begins developing military capable craft then a land based conflict will erupt LONG before this becomes reality.

I only say this because you have to look at it from the point of view of the world today. If we just snapped our fingers and we all had the technology and everyone was on an even playing field then yes I would agree this would be a more pressing issue.

And ASAT weapons are basically just missiles with additional hardware involved. It's nothing new or advanced as to what we have now

>>33129134
I like how they're so smart that they're dumb
>Order to abort? Fuck that, I already traveled hundreds of light years, it'd be a waste to not blow up. I'm going to ignore that order.

>>33128990

this, contribute or gtfo

>>33129238
> artificial gravity.
nigger, all you need is a centrifuge. which in the context of miles-wide mirrors floating in space and shit like that is not such a tall order

>>33123650
The book explained it better. TV just doesn't have the time to go into it.

>>33125962
Sub-orbital.

File: Pegasus - Mercury Class.jpg (27KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 640x360px

>>33124424

There's a lot of talk about what space combat would look like for a thread asking about when it would happen.

It's going to happen exactly as soon as it becomes viable and necessary to exert geopolitical influence in space the old fashioned way: with hard power.

In other words, probably within five years of it being viable for an organization based in space to act against the will of a government based on Terra Firma and survive the consequences of being cut off.

>>33124090

is correct:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

>>33129449
It's unlikely services would be permanently lost for a decade or more. A viable interim strategy is to move towards shorter lived satellites that live in low orbits where debris will quickly decay and re-enter the atmosphere. This would be much more difficult for engineering, but it's probably feasible until they can push some high delta-V garbage scows with whipple shields into space to reduce the collision rate enough for large, whipple-shield packing satellites to restore geostationary service coverage.

>>33129288
>>33129238
>nigger, all you need is a centrifuge
damn right.

>humans jog at 16-24km/h
>12m radius centrifuge (24 meter inner diameter ring)
>spin ring at 4 RPM
>get .2g0

Now run on the ring at 16km/h. Gravity is .76g0.
Run at 24km/h, gravity is 1.27g0.

That is just for a small centrifuge that you could fit on a ship that would already need a large habitat.

>>33129449
fiction, overblown like global warming. Number one it won't ever reach critical mass for such a thing to happen, so the worst it would ever get would be the remnants of the initial destruction.

two, if it ever got to a critical mass where the chain reaction could occur the damn thing would throw most of its mass into a gravelly ring or deorbit due to eccentricity.

>>33129515
http://www.artificial-gravity.com/sw/SpinCalc/

forgot a link so you can play with numbers too

>>33128957
>have exterior surface with -270 °C temperature.
>you are invisible now

>>33123650

> radiators

Fucking thank you. Nobody pays thermodynamics nearly the attention it deserves.

A spacecraft with any power or propulsion system worth mentioning is going to need some fuckall huge radiators lest it turns into a glowing ball of gas and molten metal.

>>33129892
depends how much waste heat you need to worry about.

File: X-37 after landing.jpg (95KB, 580x406px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 580x406px

>>33124012
>You are comparing cold rocks to space furnaces
Solar radiation utterly dominates the thermal equilibrium of any object in the solar system, whether it's a spacecraft or an asteroid. You have zero sense of perspective if you think a few kilowatts is going to make a damn difference.
>>33124044
Asteroids radiate heat. Engine burns happen but again, as with SBIRS (which looks for BIG-ASS plumes from ICBM main stages, not small orbital maneuvering burns or slow-burning ion thrusters), you still can't reliably detect them from nearly as far away as anon suggested.
>>33124079
>the drive I spec'd out earlier
Which, I assume, must be one of the hypothetical thermonuclear drives these out-of-touch morons are so obsessed with?
>snap of the fingers
>4 hours
Wew lad

>>33129924

A lot. A whole fucking lot of waste heat.

Look at any pics of the space shuttle. The entire surface of the cargo bay doors were covered in radiators. And they had to be deployed if it was up there for any length of time because that's how the shuttles shed their waste heat. And we're not talking about a big spacecraft here. It had a crew area smaller than most winnebagos and ran on dinky little fuel cells. Add to that a large reactor of some sort, a crew of at least dozens and life support for the same, computers, weapons, radars, lidars and an engine capable of getting the thing anywhere in a reasonable amount of time.... yeah. It's going to generate a ton of heat. Imagine a nuclear submarine in space without an entire ocean to use as a heat sink. You're going to need lots and lots of radiators.

That's why stealth would and would not work in space. Stealth would work so long as you weren't reflecting or radiating energy. But the first time you fire up the drive or the powerplant or just distill water for the crew, you're going to light up like a pinball machine. If you do that within a few AU of anything resembling a competent detector, everybody is going to know where you are.

>>33125948
>LAZOR STRONK!
>Spends 20min lazing my ship.
>have 300mm ablative ceramic armor.
>be rotating ship while closing as to prevent focusing.
>launch 50 missiles.
>missiles are just ceramic jacketed tungsten posts going 700KPS
>tries to laze missiles.
>nothing happens.
>dies.

File: Merlin Vacuum with radiatively-cooled nozzle.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>33129892
>A spacecraft with any power or propulsion system worth mentioning is going to need some fuckall huge radiators lest it turns into a glowing ball of gas and molten metal.
For propulsion? Modern rocket engines (by far the most prevalent form of spacecraft propulsion) don't require "fuckall huge radiators." Most use regenerative or ablative cooling and heat is carried away with the exhaust. Some use radiative cooling, but even so the nozzle itself has sufficient area for this purpose (T^4 nigga... double the absolute temperature and radiated heat goes up 16-fold).

But I mean what the fuck would ACTUAL ROCKET SCIENTISTS know about thermodynamics and spacecraft propulsion... I mean it's not like their knowledge even holds a candle to some anonymous poster on a Tibetan needlepoint forum...

>>33130317
What wattage and temperature so I can determine luminosity and calculate your minimum 1AU telescope.

>>33130317
>or just distill water for the crew
Humans are outdated m8.

>>33130411

A Los Angeles class sub has a 50,000kw powerplant.

>>33130407

> using chemical rockets to power a combat spacecraft the size of an office building

That would be like powering an aircraft carrier with oars.

>>33130386
This sounds a lot like a book i read where large ships had outer shells of rock that they would rotate around to ablate lazers. I cant remember the name of it.

File: lasercannon0.jpg (94KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 600x450px

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/index.php

>>33130513

Don't mention Project Rho here.

Apparently a denizen here got BTFO'd by the geeks over there and will endlessly berate anybody mentioning them.

>>33130407
>Modern rocket engines (by far the most prevalent form of spacecraft propulsion) don't require "fuckall huge radiators."
But they do have radiators, anon, insanely huge. What is rocket plume? Rocket engines use propellant as cooling medium drooping it outside craft . Nice trick allowing engines to have insane power but at the same putting limits on the specific thrust of the engine.

>>33122882
Wouldn't he most practical military spacecraft just be a giant satellite covered in missiles

>>33130489
Laserfags don't understand that 3-5mm of ceramic shielding like on reentry vehicle would render ANY laser useless.

>>33130317
Christ, this autist again. This whole argument is based on the assumption of space combat with our current levels of technology. In 100-200 years when space warfare becomes at all likely, our spacecraft are going to be exponentially more advanced than they are now. More advanced heat management, power, thrusters, etc.

And really it's irrelevant how "stealthy" you are or not. I would imagine a lot of it would involve parking in an orbit and waiting for something to happen by, like a hunter. Or maybe just not giving a fuck if anyone sees you and focusing more on countermeasures than actual stealth.

>>33130484
Why are you idling with 50MW?

Also you didn't say the temperature or wavelength.

>>33130484
Just use a bigger rocket dumb dumb

>>33130552
The plume doesn't actually need to be hot.

You can cool it through expansion while it is still within the rocket nozzle.

>>33130620
Temperature is function of radiator size and engine efficiency.

>>33130552

It's also vastly inefficient when it comes to moving large objects long distances at high speeds. Sure, the Voyager and Pioneer probes are launched with chemical rockets. They were also the size of a piano.

I think that nuke subs would be a good representation of the smaller end of the combat spacecraft size spectrum. Big enough to have a crew capable of fixing things, big enough to mount enough weapons and systems to be useful but not Battlestar Galactica huge. Hell, an LA class would even work in space until the reactor melted it.

Something that big? 7,000 tons? That ain't no fucking piano. Chemical rockets would be a terrible choice for moving it. The ISS weighs less than 500 tons and it took how many rockets and shuttle launches to lift it into even low orbit?

No, chemical rockets are not going to work for space combat.

>>33129505

I didn't know about Whipple shields. Thanks for sharing, anon!

>>33130620

Temperature is kind of irrelevant to wavelength. Say, 100THz.

>>33130609

That was my very first post in this thread.

File: gunbuster laser broadside.webm (3MB, 952x716px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 952x716px

>>33130513

>>33123855

>Space combat will literally be bullethell

The radiator for a 50 megawatt power plant, assuming 350 watts of dissipated heat per square meter, would need a non-overlapping surface area of 143,000 square meters.

>>33130609

You will never ever ever ever be able to goof the laws of thermodynamics no matter how badly you want to. Hollywood and sci-fi writers gloss it over because nobody want a space battleship towing around a radiator array the size of Vermont, but the reality is that any active process you undertake generates heat and that heat will find its way into the universe one way or the other. No amount of handwavium or unobtanium will cancel that out.

>>33130827
The most practical way to do it in a spacecraft performing combat maneuvers would be to keep the passive radiators as small as possible by making sure the ship has very low power states, and pouring the waste heat into the fuel used in orbital maneuvers, or some other form of jettisoned coolant.

>>33130797

That's a square radiator a third of a kilometer on a side.

>>33130763
>bending light
>using the stratosphere lens effect
oh nice

>>33130854
A bit more than a quarter if you dissipate the heat on both sides of the radiator.

>>33130853
In a heat sink that is later cooled. So maybe tanks of coolant that get pumped to radiators once the danger is over and you can expand your huge radiators.

>>33130924
That's in line with what I was thinking as well. If all else fails and you can't expand the huge radiators to passively dissipate the heat, you could purge the coolant, but you wouldn't want to do that a lot.

>>33123410
>By the time we are doing space combat, that will just get better (stealth).

You understand neither stealth nor space

>>33130860
The guys that made Gunbuster really knew their shit. They even properly modeled relativistic time dilation for almost everything.

File: ISS radiators.jpg (90KB, 640x437px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 640x437px

>>33130317
>Space Shuttle
>Average power/waste heat = 17 kW; 36 kW max
That's nothing, compared to the six fucking megawatts of sunlight that strike the orbiter when it's not shaded by the Earth.
>b-b-but the radiators are so big!!1
That has more to do with the fact that the coolant cycle on the Shuttle is non-refrigerated, meaning the radiators themselves are only slightly warmer than the ambient 279-K blackbody equilibrium temperature.

The ISS, on the other hand, has a refrigerated coolant loop and it's radiators run a bit warmer, allowing them to be much MUCH smaller despite the ISS's higher 75-120 kW waste heat.

And fun fact - if you were to strip off the thermal management system of these spacecraft, including insulation, the spacecraft would get TOO COLD, not too hot. The only reason insulation and radiators are used at all is because regulating the heat escaping the system is a lot less wasteful than regulating temperatures with power-hungry heaters.

>>33130853


If you're in orbit, then you really have no reason to worry about stealth because everybody and his dog will be able to paint you with 1960s-tier radars. In deep space, your chances of avoiding detection are better, but you're still going to be a very bright infrared dot moving very quickly against an utterly black, cold and unchanging backdrop. Even dropping your power state as low as it could go probably wouldn't be enough if you're trying to keep and crew alive and even minimal systems working.

Heat sinks+baffling+the most intricate maneuvers possible under the lowest power possible will get you pretty far. But you're still dealing with the basic math, which is a vicious bitch and thermodynamics, which is her evil grandmother.

File: U.S.S Wile E. Coyote.jpg (472KB, 3200x1113px) Image search: [Google]

472KB, 3200x1113px

The Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 was the single most stupid thing humans have ever done.

>>33131091
>Heat sinks+baffling+the most intricate maneuvers possible under the lowest power possible will get you pretty far. But you're still dealing with the basic math, which is a vicious bitch and thermodynamics, which is her evil grandmother.

I'm not one to claim dissipating waste heat in space is easy, nor one to deny that a ship's basically going to be designed around its cooling system.

File: Polyus-Energia on TEL.jpg (1MB, 2832x2053px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2832x2053px

>>33130484
> using chemical rockets to power a combat spacecraft the size of an office building
Why the fuck do you feel like militarization requires the reinvention of the entire current spaceflight paradigm here? Did they have to build office-building-sized airplane before the air could be militarized? No, they just strapped a couple machine guns to a fucking biplane.

Y'all need to keep your scifi nerdboners in your pants.

File: 1659724659823 manifest destiny.jpg (511KB, 3993x2800px) Image search: [Google]

511KB, 3993x2800px

50 years!

>>33130489
Sounds like something Niven wrote.

>>33131179
>Orbital Battleship
What does it shoot?
How would it compensate for the recoil?
How the fuck do you get that thing into space?

>>33130489
Troy Rising series by John Ringo?

They used a cloud of space reflectors to collect solar power and weaponize it. Part of the military build up was to melt large nickle iron asteroids into balls then inflate them with steam and turn them into hollow multi trillion ton battle stations.

The cloud of space mirrors used a magic reactionless drive and inter system travel was by static jump gates.

>>33131320
>What does it shoot?
Nuclear bombs.
>How would it compensate for the recoil?
Doesn't need much if you're just deorbiting a nuclear warhead.
>How the fuck do you get that thing into space?
Nuclear bombs (I'm not joking).

>>33131179
See how it takes the same amount of bombs even as the size scales

Literally no reason to build a small Project Orion craft, efficiencies only increase with size.

The design would probably be totally different if done today too

>>33130860
>stratospheric lensing.
>on a airless moon.
Fuck Gunbuster.

>>33131351
>Nuclear bombs (I'm not joking)
No need to, I read about the planned mars ship.
>Doesn't need much if you're just deorbiting a nuclear warhead
But what if the Chinese send their own battleship up?
>Nuclear bombs
Well then its just a deterrent, it won't actually be killing anything since nobody wants a nuclear war.

>>33131446
>Well then its just a deterrent, it won't actually be killing anything since nobody wants a nuclear war.

One of several reasons why it was never built.

>>33131476
Exactly, instead of building one of those lets put an Iowa into space.

>>33122882
>When do you realistically expect to see the militarization of space?
Once space becomes industrialized and there is billions of dollars worth of profit coming from mining extra terrestrial objects such as the moon or the asteroids and hundreds if not thousands of people traveling back and forth between earth and space daily, this could be anywhere from 100 to 1000 years in the future I would personally wager it being about 150-200 years.
>What do you expect space combat to look like?
Large skyscraper sized nuclear powered torchships with enormous radiators and unmanned orbital weapons platforms launching nuclear strikes against each other and possibly ground targets from different points in orbit and defending themselves with highpowered anti-missle lasers and maybe point defense cannons.
Basically very slow to watch and very expensive, like there may be hours between the launch of a missile and it hitting it's target.

File: 1337569157911.png (62KB, 961x559px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 961x559px

>>33130733
>Temperature is kind of irrelevant to wavelength. Say, 100THz.
Hertz is frequency which has a wavelength of 3μm. Lucky it has a reasonably hot temperature of near 1000k. So we can run that math.

50MW at ~1000K peak wavelength of 3μm. Lets assume the radiator is one or two panels in line with the thrust axis and the craft isn't obscuring the panels significantly. Each side of the panel emits 25MW. I'm going to avoid integration and say the panel is canted 45 degrees from the observer. So zero distance luminosity is 25MW*cos(angle), 17.7MW.

1 AU = 149597870700m
Using the inverse square law 17.7MW/(149597870700m)2 = 7.9*10^-16 W/m2

The Sun at Earth's orbit is 1361W/m2. So the irradiance difference is 1.7*10^18. The sun has a magnitude −26.74. So we find our ship's magnitude: M = log(1.7*10^18)/0.4 + -26.74 = 18.8 magnitude.

18.8 Magnitude
>18.70 Current opposition brightness of Eris
Math is fun. Good luck with your 12 magnitude sky scan telescopes.

>>33123410
>Stealth
>in space
LOL
Let me explain this, in space anything man made is going to stick out like a sore thumb against a background of cold empty vacuum.
A ship that gives off both heat (from propulsion and life support) and EM radiation is going to be obvious long before you get into a practical firing range of your target.
At any point you will be visible by radar/infrared/EM sensors
To put things in perspective if you were burning your engines out past saturn a person with a IR telescope on earth would see you.

>>33131621
BTFO one post before yours.
>>33131597

>>33124396
>Dodging light

File: 753px-Nuclear_thermal_rocket_en.png (40KB, 753x383px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 753x383px

>>33131171
You just revealed your woeful powerlevel, nigga

Ever hear of a Nuclear Thermal Rocket? It's a technology that not only exists, but is a goddamn science, to the point where there are at least 4 different designs optimized for all manner of propellants.
Oh, and each and every one outperforms a chemical rocket either in specific impulse, fuel efficiency, or both.
We can build these things today, it would actually be really fucking easy as the design amounts to a nuclear reactor that leads to a nozzle instead of a turbine

Reinvent the wheel? That shit's already been invented, we just haven't used them because there's a treaty regarding throwing radioactive material into orbit

File: shitcurity.png (60KB, 350x350px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 350x350px

>>33131254
Factory seems disingenuous on a ship that isn't processing lots of raw materials.

Unless you're getting lots of shipments of supplies and also exporting products its probably a modernized machine shop that lets you replace and repair items from a limited stock.

File: bfg sidonia.webm (3MB, 710x400px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 710x400px

>>33131894
Well, not a lot of exporting if your the last remants of humankind.
http://sidonia-no-kishi.wikia.com/wiki/Sidonia

>>33131986
I am unfamiliar with the Mongolian cave painting, so I'll take your word for it.

>>33131597

Eris is hard to find because it's slow as fuck. Also, it's radiating in the visible spectrum. You don't need a whole bunch of scanning ability to see a dot radiating in the infrared pulling half a g of acceleration.

>>33132027
You need to be able to detect a magnitude 18.8 object in the near infared.

also if it is moving exposure time will smear and fade it.

File: EKV demo.gif (1MB, 234x179px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 234x179px

>>33131817
It's still not a prerequisite for space warfare. Hell, we've ALREADY begun to witness the beginnings of the militarization of space - ICBMs, Salyut, Polyus, various ABM and ASAT systems... you're just too fucking oblivious to realize that we're basically already there, because it fails to fulfill your preconceived fantasies about what space combat SHOULD be like.

Also, a nuclear thermal rocket still won't put a fucking battleship in space, no matter how badly you want it to. It'll help you get around the solar system faster, sure, but it doesn't actually change the scale of things much.

>Oh, and each and every one outperforms a chemical rocket either in specific impulse, fuel efficiency, or both.
It's the same thing (assuming "fuel" = propellant)...

By the way, higher specific impulse fundamentally equates to LOWER energy efficiency. Just something to bear in mind. Throwing infinite amounts of energy into the equation isn't always the best solution (especially if you have any interest in preserving stealth).

>>33132027
to put it more bluntly to image a dim object you need to increase exposure time which increases your sky scan time which makes your little inexpensive telescope not little, not inexpensive and not fast scanning.

>>33132081

Something else you're missing is that a ship is going to radiate at the most efficient wavelength for ridding itself of excess heat, which won't match most of the rest of the universe. It's going to look like the one raver waving a red light stick in a sea of blue and green light sticks.

File: sulaco2.jpg (51KB, 600x438px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x438px

>>33131597
Stealth in space is less 'hurr durr absorutree impossibru' that cunts seem to think and more 'by the time you get far enough away to be invisible, your weapons are going to take anywhere between several weeks to several YEARS to get to the target'

Stealth in space is possible by dint of the square cube law, but in combat, where the kill radius of best rape-cannons and 1.21 niggawat UV lasers is measured in the single digit light seconds, stealth is just an added expense to the debris field that was your ship.

>>33132176

Who said it had to be small or inexpensive? Or singular?

>>33132241
that's a cringy pic yo

>>33132222
>Something else you're missing is that a ship is going to radiate at the most efficient wavelength for ridding itself of excess heat, which won't match most of the rest of the universe. It's going to look like the one raver waving a red light stick in a sea of blue and green light sticks.

The difficulty of detection comes from the actual photon flux and picking it up from any point in space, and recognizing it as unique and significant from cosmic rays, tens of thousands of asteroids and stars.

>>33122951
>there'd have to be some objective/target in space
There are vast mineral resources out in the asteroid belt senpai.

>>33122896
thanks grandpa fudd, we're talking about the future

>>33132241

This.

Nobody worries about hiding a carrier battle group for two reasons:

1: That shit is impossible to begin with.

2: For what you would waste attempting it, you could simply pay for more escorts, antimissile systems and aircraft.

You're not going to waste time and money trying to hide something that radiates enough energy to grow crops with when you can just double down and build a fleet of ships, drones and missiles.

>>33122882
ur mum

>>33124737
Did you know the grass from that picture is a real picture?

That's how beautiful america really is. God it must suck to be a yurocuck.

>>33132272

That's exactly my point, though.

> enemy spends fuckloads of money making sure their fleet doesn't reflect or emit any unnecessary energy
> fleet still radiates in the infrared because muh thermodynamics
> you spam a fleet of distributed detectors looking specifically in the infrared and send a shit ton of missiles after anything you see moving faster than a minor planet

File: clowndown.png (159KB, 380x301px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 380x301px

>>33132222
Realize this is a 50MW not-stealthy ship radiating in the 1000K temperature range.

Yet at one AU it is as difficult to see as a Kuiper belt object.

Now make it stealthy, reduce that 50MW to much less and you have something that is significantly more dim and only puffs up to the visibility of Charon when it does a maneuver burn.

I WANT YOU TO SEE HOW DIM SOMETHING IS WITHOUT EVEN TRYING TO BE STEALTHY

>>33123603
Y'know, I thought the scene in the book was plenty intense without getting with effective PDC range.

>Fedex pods
Fucking kek

>>33132358
> you spam a fleet of distributed detectors looking specifically in the infrared and send a shit ton of missiles after anything you see moving faster than a minor planet

Anon, literally everything that isn't incandescent radiates in the infrared.

I'd say around 20-ish years after going to space becomes roughly as cheap as a house loan. Once that happens, space colonization becomes economically viable for individuals and small groups, rather than the domain of idealist best-of-the-best types and large agencies. Once that happens, it's only a matter of time until someone gets in a fight with someone else, and once that happens everything else follows. [cheap, individual-ship mass space colonization will kill a lot of people, but so did the oregon trail, so fuck it]

>>33132241
>your weapons are going to take anywhere between several weeks to several YEARS to get to the target'
That's a fact of life with spaceflight. Launch windows are few and far-between. Even an orbital bombardment station in low orbit would only have firing solutions twice a day. And forgoing stealth isn't going to change ANY of that.

>>33132307
But a spacecraft isn't a fucking aircraft carrier. Cost and energy/impulse requirements alone dictates that spacecraft are universally relatively small and light, and the very nature of spaceflight means the distances involved are almost always far greater than anything we see here on Earth. It's not that hard to avoid detection under these circumstances.

Hell, we've already lost track of all kinds of space junk beyond LEO, including the fairly large S-IVB stages from the Apollo era (that is, the ones we didn't crash into the Moon of course).

Why the fuck does everybody jump to irrelevant naval analogies when discussing space combat? Stop trying to turn spaceflight into something it's not.

>>33131817
>Oh, and each and every one outperforms a chemical rocket either in specific impulse, fuel efficiency, or both.

Not in thrust to weight or actually being a real fucking rocket

>>33132509

> Missing the entire point: The Post

>>33128990
>implying there are sides to the argument
>implying this thread has anything worth contributing to
Just keep masturbating to your own dumbass spess wer fantasies.

>>33132358
> enemy spends fuckloads of money making sure their fleet doesn't reflect or emit any unnecessary energy
Smaller and more efficient means LESS expensive, Anon.
> fleet still radiates in the infrared because muh thermodynamics
Yet still much, much less than the average asteroid. Even without trying.

>>33132175
>By the way, higher specific impulse fundamentally equates to LOWER energy efficiency.

The fuck
where do you autists come from

>>33132573
Alright, what's the fucking point, then?

>>33132615
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_impulse#Energy_efficiency
This is really basic physics. Higher ISP in vacuum requires higher exhaust velocity and more energy per unit impulse. There's no way around it.

>>33132722
>This is really basic physics. Higher ISP in vacuum requires higher exhaust velocity and more energy per unit impulse. There's no way around it.

Kind of a moot point, because the limiting factor is, and always will be, reaction mass.

>>33124381
Gaissian dispersion. A laser beam will disperse to the point of uselessness at the distance to the moon. Lasers are strictly short range weapons even in space.

File: Space_Missile.jpg (36KB, 536x367px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 536x367px

I imagine armored missiles would make good space combat weapons. Even if it takes them weeks to get to target, they'll be able to correct course as necessary. They will have resistance to lasers and bursting shrapnel style interceptors. Since they have their own propellant, launching them won't push your vessel around. It should be feasible to make them powerful enough to have high odds of 1-hit kills while still being portable enough to get into space.

>>33132722
>>33132767
Also, when there's higher exhaust velocity, the amount of velocity gained by the ship per unit fuel mass increases.

>>33132722
It's not lower "energy efficiency"
It's that Isp and exhaust velocity are the same thing, and accelerating stuff backwards will always take more power the faster it goes...

File: 7534584-pocisk-tomahawk-niszczy-samolot-900-556.jpg (45KB, 900x556px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 900x556px

>>33132776
>I imagine armored missiles would make good space combat weapons. Even if it takes them weeks to get to target, they'll be able to correct course as necessary. They will have resistance to lasers and bursting shrapnel style interceptors.

nah. armor is directly counterproductive to range and speed; not even combat spacecraft will ever have armor aside from advanced coatings or damage-accommodating cellular design.

Space missiles will probably be tipped with explosive containers filled with small metal beads; they will explode far in advance of the target and create clouds of undodgeable hypervelocity debris

consider that, when an object explodes in space, the explosion itself will continue moving at the object's original speed. The idea would be to time the detonation so that the explosive radius of the missile will occupy every possible position the enemy craft could maneuver to.

>>33132767
>the limiting factor is, and always will be, reaction mass.
Not true. With ion/plasma thrusters, the limiting factor is available power, not propellant. That's why they're working on VASIMIR - so they can turn the ISP down, turn propellant flow rate up and get more impulse/thrust out of the same power when they need it, then turn ISP back up again to conserve propellant for the long haul.

>>33133034
Truthfully, there are three factors at work. Change in velocity, change in time, and change in mass. Optimizations almost always comes at the cost of one or another.

Also, once upon a time, they wanted VASIMR to be a fusion torch engine, but they couldn't design the system to output that kind of power.

>>33122882
We already have military personnel on mars.

>>what is a 700 billion dollar a year black budget

File: Mother_of_Invention_in_battle.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>33122882
Anyone who thinks that the Paris class frigate isn't downright sexy is either lying or wrong.

>>33133133
Nice digits, but you're off by an order of magnitude. The black budget is "only" ~$50 billion a year. Beyond that, a relatively large black budget isn't proof of space ambitions.

>>33133030
>nah. armor is directly counterproductive to range and speed
The missile could have a large length to diameter ratio and not require much front armor to save it from various interceptors.

>explosive containers filled with small metal beads
Small hypersonic projectiles sounds a lot like the space debris that present day orbiting vessels are armored against. Still, with the long acceleration to target plus the bursting charge this could be faster, and the beads could be as big as they need to be.

>>33122929
I wonder if rods from god has been snuck up there.

>>33133205
>The missile could have a large length to diameter ratio and not require much front armor to save it from various interceptors.

right, but it's competing against identical missiles which are going to successfully intercept it every time because they aren't burdened by armor

>>33133232
There's no point in keeping Rods in orbit. Makes far more sense to just launch them on-demand. Same goes for nuclear delivery systems.

>>33123855
Missiles are not actually that good.

You have to carry them.
you have to fire them.

They are slower than light.
They have a predictable flight path.
They cannot possibly correct flight path faster than light or even at a fraciton that matters.

AI/Computer targeting + Laser weapons would be king.

Light speed IS the only speed that space cares about. You can shoot down, annihilate or destroy any projectile or missile that is fired before it can get to you with proper gamma ray laser systems.

These laser systems are hardly within reach now; but theoretically possible and have a range in light minutes to light weeks.

>>33133427
>They have a predictable flight path.
Which they can change mid-flight. In fact, in space, they can basically just drift left or right, up or down to the limit of their structure and thruster arrangements.

>>33133606
not at the speed of light they cant

>>33133427
>Light speed IS the only speed that space cares about. You can shoot down, annihilate or destroy any projectile or missile that is fired before it can get to you with proper gamma ray laser systems.

This is only as true as your ability to detect, track, and fire upon the projectile. If you're clever, you can create very low signature, high velocity projectiles.

>>33133606
They can't change it faster than you can detect it. At long ranges (light minutes, light weeks) they can shoot you first. So missiles will simply take too long and even if you volley fire and get shot down; your missiles can then be targeted despite shifts.

You can ALWAYS see the new course correction after it happens and make a prediction as long as the missile moves slower than light.

>>33133623
That is fair but tracking with precision is NOT hard. We can create objects with micron level accuracy already. We can also create tracking likewise.

So long as emission of energy is required to re-direct the projectile they will be able to see it coming and shoot it down before you can dodge.

>>33133825
>That is fair but tracking with precision is NOT hard.
The level of precision YOU'RE talking about is. 1 meter on the Moon, viewed from Earth, is .0005 arcseconds. Even the best space telescopes can't even image with that fine of resolution, let alone STEER with it.

That goes for your laser's dispersion too - even with perfect aim, realistically your optics are going to cause enough diffusion that only a small fraction of your radiated power would even land on the hull of your target at all at those distances. And the intensity of the radiation that DOES hit will be abysmal.

You aren't destroying shit. At most you'll give them a sunburn and hope they die of malignant melanoma.

>>33134161
>hope they die of malignant melanoma.
Yeah, see this anons playing the long game. While our home planet is being conquered, the crew on one of the bombarding ships is slowly dying. Genius.

>>33133427
>Missiles are not actually that good.
>Micro-missiles are fucking meta in CHODE
Even if you don't kill your opponent you make him waste delta V avoiding you.

What if missiles could travel at FTL speeds?

>When do you realistically expect to see the militarization of space?
I doubt militarisation would be cost effective before the extraction of mineral resources from the Moon or Mars becomes cost effective, so like a hundred years.

It's too easy to lob missiles at each other from Earth, we don't really need to do it from space.

>>33131597
>fucking ligger holocaust grenades the path to the shuttle
>1 minute left
>panic.jpeg

Good game. Don't know how anyone gets a match to last longer than three minutes, though.

>>33132307
Except anon, that they literally did hide carrier battle groups from the USSR. Regularly.

Pretty sure that includes during the time period the had radar equipped satellites searching the ocean for ships, instead of just optical/infrared/uv imaging ones.

>>33133374
For the nukes it makes sense to have them in orbit. In that case they'd hit their targets before the enemy knew they'd been fired, since BM detection relies on seeing them launch, not in their mid-course phase, and fixing that is a lot harder than making a treaty that says no.

>>33135159
Then you physically cannot see them coming and the game is all about not being seen by your enemy because the only indication you'll get of it is you dying suddenly.

Unless you take into account however the shit that got them going that fast works, whether you're hoping for Alubierre drives, wormhole, or warp nonsense. But that doesn't exist anon.

>>33123873
A space elevator uses the earths rotation to stay in space. What you're saying is it's weakness is actually the sole reason people propose it.

>>33127252
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDgFXAcbOHw&ab_channel=EnigmaHood

File: 1470979169736.jpg (381KB, 1174x1015px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 1174x1015px

>>33135159
imposibur
You will have to settle on near light speed

>>33135646
tard

File: Boxflight Raceboat Glasscherry Tangowine.gif (174KB, 499x208px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 499x208px

According to alleged insiders like Greer we're pretty much quarantined to Earth as a species until we can get our shit together, ergo why the space program suddenly died off. Nasa since then has been tasked with the juggling act of making it look like we're advancing space technology while not actually sending anyone out further than low Earth orbit. And with all our communications with otherworldly beings purportedly being done through the dubious military/industrial complex it's highly unlikely we're fostering any progressive goodwill with any extra-terrestrial visitors.

There's also evidence to suggest that numerous subterranean complexes around the world and areas of Antartica are bases for extraterrestrials and there's fuck all we can do about it so rather than any government admitting they're powerless to do anything about these installations, they just make these areas no-fly zones and play dumb to maintain the illusion of control.

Some others with alleged connections to the military/industrial complex have even gone as far to say that the Greys and Reptilians (popular staples of the pop culture / conspiracy theorist alien phenomenon) are nothing more than disinformation staged to keep the UFO community tied up with multiple and often conflicting narratives regarding our alleged interactions with aliens relying on our desire to see human/alien relations as something more out of science fiction than the underwhelming truth of "aliens are mostly peaceful and aloof, kinda tired of our shit and waiting for us to unite as a species and give up war."

As dubious as this all sounds to any well-warranted skeptic you can't help but imagine what would any Government stand to gain if its people found out extraterrestrial interests wanted us to unify as a species under a single world government and become more peaceful and altruistic. Greedy people in power want to stay in power so there's no interest in making any of this public.

>>33136260
(con't)

If any of this is true I can't help but wonder if the constant conflict we see between Conservatives and Liberals is an indication of our own cultural infighting in regards to this dilemma.

Conservatives want private interests and big money to control everything, world governments to remain self-contained and in control, push for regressive social policies, fuck the environment, fuck science, stupid is good, weapons is good, etc.

Liberals want globalism, push for progressive social policies, general altruism, better Earth stewardship, less weapons, more education, etc.

It's like one is all "Hey, let's become a big peaceful world government like the Ayy Lmaos want" and the other is all like "Fuck that, I like things they way they are, in fact, why don't we dial it back a few decades."

Though frankly I can't see any point going out into space anyway if I can't keep my Colt 3000 pulse rifle and Zaldarian Flash Gun. Muh second amendment!

>>33136319
>>33136260
had to ruin your whole rant by being a liberal dipshit huh!

>>33136207
Elaborate.

>>33136404
Don't worry, Drumpf will make Aliens great again you 2D cliche.

We have absolutely no incentive for space combat right now. I doubt it'll ever happen unless we manage to start colonizing other planets.

The closet thing we'll get in the near future is probably a low orbit kinetic weapons platform. afaik darpa started looking into one in around 2006 but I have no idea what the status of it is now.

>>33122882
Starting in the 2020s, but by the 2050s evolving to be heavily focused on planetary ops (i.e., kinetic bombardment, space marines, etc). Less ship to ship combat.

This seems to be the most realistic scenario:
http://ynot1989.deviantart.com/gallery/25500251/Second-Renaissance

>>33132337
i like my fjords.

>>33132283
You asked when. He said near future and I'll expand that to mean, not within the next 100 years.

>>33124247
love your game man
best money spend in a long time

>>33136260
[Requires citation]

>Inb4 BRO THE ANSWERS ARE THERE JUST LOOK

>>33123410
>we can detect galaxies billions of light years away, but jamal thinks you can't possibly detect a ship a few hundred miles away

>>33130860
>>33131404
It's just a wide angle lens.

File: Honor Harrington.gif (2MB, 350x197px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 350x197px

>>33124471