|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Realistic space-to-space weapons for manned craft?
Presumably sci.space.tech is not exclusively about propulsion.
Has there been much study about what kind of weaponry a manned spacecraft might carry with near-current technology? There are a number of things that would work in vacuum that wouldn't work in air. Possibilities that come to mind include xray lasers, particle (e.g., electron/positron) beam weapons, and electromagnet slug launchers (tiny antimatter slugs?). Clearly conventional atomic weapons would be far too massive to be accelerated very much, and therefore pretty useless. A disk-shaped vessel might have counter-rotating circular particle accelerators. Hmmm... Has much been done on this? I don't recall it being discussed here. /kenw Ken Wallewein K&M Systems Integration Phone (403)274-7848 Fax (403)275-4535 www.kmsi.net |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Realistic space-to-space weapons for manned craft?
Ken Wallewein wrote:
Has there been much study about what kind of weaponry a manned spacecraft might carry with near-current technology? In my experience, the soft underbelly of all spacecraft is their software. Clearly then the weapon of choice would be the computer virus. (A la "Independence Day".) Along these lines, we should be developing and promoting a space-qualified version of Windows for use in other countries' space programs ... mark |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Realistic space-to-space weapons for manned craft?
distances in space tend to be quite large. But then agian orbits are
hard to change. Ball berrings looks like a nice "grenade". Just don't stay in orbit afterwards. Case in point just about anything will result in quite a mess in LEO and will make somewhat useless. Higher up the distances would make anything other than carfully guided projectiles with signifcant steath pretty useless. Lasers could damage optical instuments etc. But significant damage is more a starwars (aka reagan not Vader) myth. Its pretty easy to get rid of the radation. XRays would do better... but well multimegawatt average power Xray lasers do not exist and would perhaps be a bit heavy. I have assumed near term. Most of your sugestions are not near term IMO. Greg |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Realistic space-to-space weapons for manned craft?
Ken Wallewein wrote:
Presumably sci.space.tech is not exclusively about propulsion. Has there been much study about what kind of weaponry a manned spacecraft might carry with near-current technology? There are a number of things that would work in vacuum that wouldn't work in air. Possibilities that come to mind include xray lasers, particle (e.g., electron/positron) beam weapons, and electromagnet slug launchers (tiny antimatter slugs?). Clearly conventional atomic weapons would be far too massive to be accelerated very much, and therefore pretty useless. A disk-shaped vessel might have counter-rotating circular particle accelerators. Hmmm... Has much been done on this? I don't recall it being discussed here. ... something like this: http://www.astronautix.com/articles/almpart1.htm ? Regards Adam Przybyla |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Realistic space-to-space weapons for manned craft?
Ken Wallewein wrote: Possibilities that come to mind include xray lasers, particle (e.g., electron/positron) beam weapons, Well, we all know that the US miltary has been playing with energy weapons for a while now, and I imagine they could probably put something pretty nasty in space on current technology, if they had the will and the funding to do so. However, laser weapons do require a pretty hefty power source, so unless someone comes up with a cheaper way of getting into orbit it probably wouldn't be the most cost-effective option at the moment. and electromagnet slug launchers (tiny antimatter slugs?). I'd say antimatter is prohibitively expensive to produce, even on military budgets. I think it will probably be a long while before you start seeing it in weapons. (Mercifully) However, an electromagnetic massdriver would be a very effective weapon, and doable on current tech. Not sure about the energy requirements, but I think it could be fairly compact. I believe I saw on the internet somewhere someone had made a hand-gun sized massdriver. Scary. Clearly conventional atomic weapons would be far too massive to be accelerated very much, and therefore pretty useless. The main trouble with atomic weapons in space, i believe, is that there is no medium to propogate the blast. They will do lots of damage if they score a direct hit, but if they miss by any significant amount, all they really do is release a lot of radiation, and since your target spaceship is likely to be radiation-shielded anyway... A disk-shaped vessel might have counter-rotating circular particle accelerators. Hmmm... ??? Can't comment on this. I think the most viable weapon on current tech is likely to be some form of guided missile. You release it, and then it uses its own rocket motors and computers and whatnot to fly straight to the target, in much the same way guided missiles work down on Earth, only without such annoyances as gravity and terrain to contend with. Of course, the question is, what kind of warhead do you put on it? If you can get enough velocity behind it, no warhead is necessary, you could just shape it so that it pierces the hull and/ or explodes from sheer kinetic energy. Depending on the range, the detection systems of the target and its maneuverability, these things might be quite easy to dodge, so they'd either want to find a way of evading detection or splitting up en-route to cover a wider target volume. Another option might be some kind of stealthy robotic drone that sneaks up to the enemy craft, either under its own guidance or by remote control, latches on to the hull and starts cutting holes in it with special tools, but that might be a little far-fetched. David Weber's Honor Harrington books (for all their numerous faults) go into excrutiating detail on space-age weaponry and warfare-. It's all set in the far-future with some very very fantastic tech, but the basic principles of space-based missile combat and so forth seem pretty sound, and would apply even to current tech. It might be worth your while reading one or two of them, if you feel like it. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Realistic space-to-space weapons for manned craft?
"Ken Wallewein" wrote in message
... Presumably sci.space.tech is not exclusively about propulsion. Has there been much study about what kind of weaponry a manned spacecraft might carry with near-current technology? There are a number of things that would work in vacuum that wouldn't work in air. I don't know about spacecraft-to-spacecraft weapons, but I once held a declassified document from the early 60's outlining the feasibility of several conventional weapons for use on the moon. The Pentagon authorizes all sorts of "blue sky" studies like this, and back then everything about space exploration was an unknown. But it seemed that whoever authorized the study wanted to look into what kind of weaponry and what kinds of modifications to existing weapons would be needed if it came down to armed conflict between Americans ans Soviets on the moon. As I recall, there was a fairly large section on modifying existing projectile weapon technology for use in vacuum; something about changing the bullets to include an oxydizer, and using graphite lubrication in place of gun oil (which would boil away in vacuum or burst into flames in a pure O2 environment). I think there was also some stuff about needing to make the gun from materials with very similar coefficients of thermal expansion to deal with the wide thermal ranges expected, but I don't recall seeing any mention of how to handle recoil in a 1/6th G environment. If I recall correctly, there was also some stuff about modifying the sights to work with a spacesuit helmet, and the trigger to work with pressurized gloves. I also remember hearing about a plan to put up a cloud of copper BB's in LEO in case an ICBM attack became imminent. The thinking was that any ICBM warhead reentering through the cloud would come out with it's ablative shield covered with a layer of highly conductive (thermally) copper, and would burn up. The fact that radio teloscopy or human space travel would then become impossible for about a thousand years was considered an acceptable tradeoff (and I have to say that I agree with that asessment, harsh as it seems). As far as technology for use against a manned spacecraft, both the US and the Soviets had farily active anti-sattellite programs in the 80's, and killing a robotic craft isn't that different from killing a manned vehicle. I guess there are two schools of thought - one is that if you blow something up in orbit, the pieces will sooner or later (probably sooner) become more of a menace to your own spacecraft than the original threat. In this school of thought, EMP (like an x-ray laser) would be a better bet; wipe out the electronics and you've turned a manned spacecraft into a travelling tomb, with no messy space junk to clean up. Of course, the other school of thought is that you stick with known technology, and that means projectile weapons and explosives. In that school of thought, you blow them up and let other people worry about space junk. Personally, I'd be surprised if the Boys in Blue hadn't already come up with something like a cross between "brilliant pebbles" and a cluster bomb; small but massive (as in heavy) objects with a rudimentary propulsion and GNC system, possibly carried in a cluster munition (ok, a "mother ship"), deployed in either a retrograde or polar orbit. In time of war, the mother ship could release clouds of these things at several useful altitudes, and from there they'd wait until activated from the ground to maneuver in front of a bogie heading in thier direction. Basically, you're talking about a bullet with an impact velocity of 34,0000 MPH, hitting a vehicle that doesn't have any systems that aren't critical. In a pinch they could even be used against ground targets. Oh, by the way, X-Ray lasers need an atomic detonation to "pump" the particles, and having a nuclear warhead in orbit is a violation of a LOT of international treaties. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Realistic space-to-space weapons for manned craft?
Torpedoes make a lot of sense, as they can leverage the kinetic energy
inherent in being in a different orbit. You probably don't even benefit much from explosives; the sheer mass should be pretty damaging. Take a sizable chunk of metal, and attach the DART systems to it, without the 'slow end approach' code. (heck, it's ready to go for your purposes; the slow approach is the only part they're still debugging Any kind of beam weapon requires line-of-sight and so is less useful. (unless you're near a black hole, which creates other problems) I would expect (for no particular reason) that spacecraft combat in a gravity well involves two wildly different orbits and sniping at targets of opportunity. other thoughts? Is this trending in the direction of sci.fiction.space.tech? Ken Wallewein wrote: Presumably sci.space.tech is not exclusively about propulsion. Has there been much study about what kind of weaponry a manned spacecraft might carry with near-current technology? There are a number of things that would work in vacuum that wouldn't work in air. Possibilities that come to mind include xray lasers, particle (e.g., electron/positron) beam weapons, and electromagnet slug launchers (tiny antimatter slugs?). Clearly conventional atomic weapons would be far too massive to be accelerated very much, and therefore pretty useless. A disk-shaped vessel might have counter-rotating circular particle accelerators. Hmmm... Has much been done on this? I don't recall it being discussed here. /kenw Ken Wallewein K&M Systems Integration Phone (403)274-7848 Fax (403)275-4535 www.kmsi.net |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Realistic space-to-space weapons for manned craft?
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Realistic space-to-space weapons for manned craft?
*From:* Ken Wallewein
*Date:* Thu, 11 May 2006 17:30:18 GMT Presumably sci.space.tech is not exclusively about propulsion. Has there been much study about what kind of weaponry a manned spacecraft might carry with near-current technology? There are a number of things that would work in vacuum that wouldn't work in air. Possibilities that come to mind include xray lasers, particle (e.g., electron/positron) beam weapons, and electromagnet slug launchers (tiny antimatter slugs?). Clearly conventional atomic weapons would be far too massive to be accelerated very much, and therefore pretty useless. A disk-shaped vessel might have counter-rotating circular particle accelerators. Hmmm... Has much been done on this? I don't recall it being discussed here. You have to be careful to avoid littering LEO with thousands of bits of shrapnel. It's rather a Pyrrhic victory to deny space to both sides of the conflict! So the most ecologically sound way to attack an orbiting satellite would be to use a small unmanned tug to match orbits with it then deorbit it. The victim burns up in the Earth's atmosphere, along with all the evidence that you shot it down! You could also use an aircraft-launched ASAT to put a steel mesh net or a cloud of ball bearings at the right height in the path of the target. The target's own orbital velocity will then cause it significant damage. The problem with this is that the ASAT is unlikely to have enough mass to decelerate and burn up the resulting mess, leaving lots of nasty remains in orbit. Beam weapons aren't too useful if you want to avoid polluting LEO as they do nothing but make holes, blind sensors or cause outgassing and consequent random orbital changes. They're better for dealing with ICBMs which are never intended to reach orbit. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Realistic space-to-space weapons for manned craft?
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 2nd 05 04:13 AM |
Stop Space Based Weapons! | Mark R. Whittington | Policy | 1 | May 22nd 05 03:35 PM |
European high technology for the International Space Station | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 10th 04 02:40 PM |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 03:28 AM |
Our Moon as BattleStar | Rick Sobie | Astronomy Misc | 93 | February 8th 04 09:31 PM |