Thoughts on space warfare. - Writers Forum

LionofPerth · 05-26-2008, 08:42 AM

Having finally started the piece I was asking the naval warfare question about, I've come up with a few basic principles behind how everything works. I was hoping you could read it through, and point out any massive holes in my logic that I have missed, which I'm pretty sure exist.

Point 1 - Ships will try to neutralise all internal emissions of radition/energy, like thermal radiation and microwave, while emitting a base level of back ground radiation to blend in.

The above point relates to the night time camoflague as seen in WW2 to a degree. When you paint a plane, or bomber black, it creates a well of darkness, and so is easier to spot as it is in effect blacker/darker than the night around it. By painting it a dark green/mottled green you actually blend in, and so is far harder to spot as it is lighter than the back ground light.

In my case, by cancelling out the major 'human' radiation and emitting the basic background radiation you blend in.

Point 2 - Sensors work by looking for the human types of radiation, or any massive sources of energy, ie hyperspace entry/exit, weapons fire and engine emissions. Sensors would work on a similar principle to SONAR. That is the energy travels and you 'listen' for it, triangulate and track it. Attack when you're in control of as many factors as you can be in.

Point 3 - Distances are somewhat irrelevant, with weapons that could, in effect, strike from million of miles/kilometres away, it more becomes a case of effective targeting and weapon delivery.

The final point does even out the guns vs strike craft debate I'd been having, as they both have their own prefered operational.............. tactics, for lack of a better word, and it allows the story to flow nicely without needing every single skirmish to include the fighter squadron.

desm · 05-26-2008, 09:52 AM

There doesn't seem to be any glaring holes at all. But distances aren't irrelevant. If a weapon is fired form a million miles a way, your enemy will see it coming. the firing speed will be important, as will the gravitational effects of bodies upon weapons. Weapons use in hyperspace - is that possible?
The relative power of weapons is, obviously, as I'm sure you know, important. Drop out of warp and shoot at somebody, there goes your ship too if you're too close.
Also - how will your craft slow down? This is ignored by most sci-fi writers, but if you're firing thrusters, you're visible! And you probably shouldn't fire weapons in case they explode.

Ilasir Maroa · 05-26-2008, 10:30 AM

I'm somehwat confused... what exactly do you mean by "space" warfare? you seem to be describing things in terms of naval combat on a planetary surface; is that an analogy? As another note, how familiar are you with the use of sonar, which I believe is generally considered an active sensor?

lin · 05-26-2008, 11:50 AM

Oh, oh, get set for some major info-dump.

Lion, one thing that occurs to me is that that sensing for human radiation (too tiny to travel very far across the huge distances you mention) is that it would be useless against unmanned units.

DarkHorse220 · 05-27-2008, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LionofPerth

Having finally started the piece I was asking the naval warfare question about, I've come up with a few basic principles behind how everything works. I was hoping you could read it through, and point out any massive holes in my logic that I have missed, which I'm pretty sure exist.

Point 1 - Ships will try to neutralise all internal emissions of radition/energy, like thermal radiation and microwave, while emitting a base level of back ground radiation to blend in.

The above point relates to the night time camoflague as seen in WW2 to a degree. When you paint a plane, or bomber black, it creates a well of darkness, and so is easier to spot as it is in effect blacker/darker than the night around it. By painting it a dark green/mottled green you actually blend in, and so is far harder to spot as it is lighter than the back ground light.

In my case, by cancelling out the major 'human' radiation and emitting the basic background radiation you blend in.

How "realistic" are you shooting for? If you're looking for some soft-ish space-opera type stuff, some of this will work. If you're trying to keep it more in the realm of hard SF, this will have to change.

Reason being, energy doesn't just vanish. Even life-support systems have to keep the internal temperature within a certain range for humans to survive-- and the waste heat from this has to go somewhere.

This is to say nothing of the reactors and drive systems necessary for a space-going ship.

Background radiation is something like 2-3K, whereas a spaceship is going to be radiating at a much, much higher temperature. This is unavoidable unless you want to cook the occupants and melt the interior.

Result: in a "realistic" hard SF setting, stealth and camouflage just aren't happening to any meaningful degree. The more you're willing to bend the rules, the more that stealth can come into play.

Quote:

Point 2 - Sensors work by looking for the human types of radiation, or any massive sources of energy, ie hyperspace entry/exit, weapons fire and engine emissions. Sensors would work on a similar principle to SONAR. That is the energy travels and you 'listen' for it, triangulate and track it. Attack when you're in control of as many factors as you can be in.

Ideally you'd have both passive and active sensing in place.

In a battle situation, you wouldn't necessarily want your radar/lidar actively scanning space. Why? Because any signal that you emit also shows the enemy where you are.

If you're postulating a setting where stealth is a feasible tactic, the last thing you'd want to do is give away your position.

Quote:

Point 3 - Distances are somewhat irrelevant, with weapons that could, in effect, strike from million of miles/kilometres away, it more becomes a case of effective targeting and weapon delivery.

Assuming the enemy doesn't know you're there, yes.

If the enemy knows you've spotted him, he's going to maneuver accordingly. Over distances of several light-seconds, there's plenty of time for the target to not be where you saw him by the time your weapons get there.

But this depends entirely on the dynamic of warfare (in turn dependent on the technological rules you've established) and the weapons in place.

A laser beam is more or less "instant", but instant is relative. An enemy that's intentionally evading is still going to be hard to hit over long distances. It's even worse for a missile or fighter.

Quote:

The final point does even out the guns vs strike craft debate I'd been having, as they both have their own prefered operational.............. tactics, for lack of a better word, and it allows the story to flow nicely without needing every single skirmish to include the fighter squadron.

Fighters, again, depend on tech base. In realistic terms, a fighter simply won't have the delta-v to keep up with a capital ship, to say nothing of the extra mass requirements to support a human pilot.

You'd need some type of handwavium technology to power a small fighter to the point where it's competitive with a larger ship and still feasible for a human pilot.

Otherwise, you could treat fighters as automated (and expendable) missile buses that carry lots of sub-munitions.

Mike C · 05-27-2008, 02:50 AM

Ditch realism. Aim for believeable.

None of the skirmishes in Star Wars are realistic, they defy the laws of physics. But only the major geeks watch it and say "That could never happen".

Tell a good story. Don't bog it down in science.

SilverSphere · 05-27-2008, 04:55 AM

Mike C is right, soft sci-fi is more enjoyable to read (and write) than hard sci-fi which has far too many limitations.

I'd recommend picking the technologies which would create the most exciting combat scenes rather than the technologies which are realistic.

LionofPerth · 05-27-2008, 07:22 AM

Okay, I'll be here a while.

The story is roughly somewhere between the hard and soft. Small fighters exist, but they have no life support per say, not like an X Wing from Star Wars. Pilots wear self contained life support suits that cover that. A fighter is just a really really small ship, with the bare bones required to get everything working, in comparison to a large combat vessel.

DarkHorse, having read a few things on the subject I'd like to say a few things. Firstly, I see their sensors as being like a SONAR suite on a modern sub. It will contain both an active and passive element. The last thing you want to do in any situation is broadcast a massive 'I am here' signal, let alone in a battle, as we both agree.

Knowing a little science, I felt I could add something to the store with the whole energy thing. Ships would be pumping out energy, internal signals, thermal, tonnes of it really. It is the 'soundwave' in space, for lack of a better way of describing it. Using some ideas I've gleaned from Submarine by Tom Clancy, and a few other sources, I made a guess at what a combat vessel could do. I think it works, and it seems vaguely realistic, I was never aiming for the story to get bogged in hard science, more, it's there if you want it, at least in a basic form.

desm, as for how my ships move, this is my current idea.

A ship powers up it's engine, and directs energy into propulsion, then when the speed is reaced, we'll say, one third ahead, the propulsion is turned off. In effect, unless in a gravity well, the ship coasts everywhere when not in Hyperspace. To slow down, the ship fires off it's thrusters, for lack of a better word, in the opposite direction, bringing it to a stop, basic inertia as I understand it.

Weapons come in a couple of forms in this universe, and I do have energy shielding/force fields as well.

Plasma- Effective against both shields and hulls
Kinetic- Effective only against hulls
Energy- Effective only against shields. As I see it, you are overcharging the generators by adding more energy to the shield, and so triggering emergency cut offs etc.
Laser- Can pierce shields

Finally, lin, must you be so.... disparaging?

DarkHorse220 · 05-27-2008, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LionofPerth

Okay, I'll be here a while.

The story is roughly somewhere between the hard and soft. Small fighters exist, but they have no life support per say, not like an X Wing from Star Wars. Pilots wear self contained life support suits that cover that. A fighter is just a really really small ship, with the bare bones required to get everything working, in comparison to a large combat vessel.

If you go this route, it'd be a good idea to handwave some sort of gravity/inertia control tech for the universe.

Otherwise, your human pilots are going to be limited to 3-5G, maybe occasional bursts of up to 10G.

The enemy's unmanned missiles are going to come in with 50-100+ G thrust and obliterate them.

I'm not so much suggesting hard science reality as much as I am for consistency and the consequences (intended or otherwise) of any given technology.

Quote:

DarkHorse, having read a few things on the subject I'd like to say a few things. Firstly, I see their sensors as being like a SONAR suite on a modern sub. It will contain both an active and passive element. The last thing you want to do in any situation is broadcast a massive 'I am here' signal, let alone in a battle, as we both agree.

Knowing a little science, I felt I could add something to the store with the whole energy thing. Ships would be pumping out energy, internal signals, thermal, tonnes of it really. It is the 'soundwave' in space, for lack of a better way of describing it. Using some ideas I've gleaned from Submarine by Tom Clancy, and a few other sources, I made a guess at what a combat vessel could do. I think it works, and it seems vaguely realistic, I was never aiming for the story to get bogged in hard science, more, it's there if you want it, at least in a basic form.

The only problem you'd run into here is that space is very big and very empty. Something in space is a different animal from a terrestrial atmosphere or ocean.

In other words, if you've got something pumping out X amount of energy and there's no planet or star that direction, you can be pretty sure that it's artificial. There's no "signature" to speak of; and it doesn't need one.

You could handwave this to a point, I guess, but what you *don't* want to do is give your forces some handicap in the name of cool-tech. What you could do, to keep with the theme of consistency, is postulate a form of energy and heat-dissipating technology that does something freaky like radiating excess heat/energy away in a form that doesn't strongly interact with normal matter and electromagnetic frequencies.

Make it so that in normal space, it's running cold and silent...but with your space-SONAR, you could potentially detect it both by passive and active means. It's one answer, anyway.

LionofPerth · 05-27-2008, 09:17 AM

Well, I've not gotten in that level of detail yet, but I'm more interested in the story, I can make things work in the universe once it's written.

I did use a bad example, but I honestly couldn't think of a better way of trying to show what I mean. Do I plan on having some type of signature, yes I do, right now, the matter is how I explain it.

As far as I see it at the moment, life support is pilot provided through their suits, while inertia shielding etc is provided through the fighter, after all it's just a ship on a smaller scale than a battlecruiser.

Though, in terms of heat, perhaps you could trap a portion of the excess and use that to heat the water for that vessel, or something else, I mean, as long as the energy is trapped in some form, it can't give you away.

Wintermute · 05-27-2008, 12:45 PM

Just look at all the instances in films when mass fiery explosions occured in space and ask yourself if you were ever pissed about the impossibility of it all.

Ilasir Maroa · 05-27-2008, 04:38 PM

In reference to inertia shielding, a fighter would have less than a battlecruiser. Power rwquirements being the main issue here. A missile really doesn't have to worry about inertia insofar as it might be dangerous on it's own. So they could still go faster than fighters.

What you do have to watch out for is inertia as it pertains to maneuverability. No tight turns, etc...

As to energy signatures: many current conepts look at engine signatures. It is almost impossible to create thrust without something resembling conventional engines; whether they use material fules, or strict enegry, engines will put off enough of a signature to be discernable against the cold background of space. Depending on the sensor systems involved, you could have effective stealth or not.

LionofPerth · 05-28-2008, 04:25 AM

Well, that was one thought, but I've still go to write it. I needed to talkout some ideas to be honest.

All the help is appreciated, so thanks.

Mike C · 05-29-2008, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LionofPerth

Knowing a little science, I felt I could add something to the store with the whole energy thing.

Lin made a valid point about infodumps. Do you want to inject 'real' science into the story because it progresses the story, or because you want to show off your scientific knowledge?

Consider that you may find yourself explaining how an energy shield or suchlike works. How do you do that without putting the whole story on pause while you introduce a stilted and cliché scene of the chief engineer explaining to the rookie pilot how it works, or something equally painful?

This is where a lot of SF and fantasy writers foul up. You're creating a world that just 'is' - the reader isn't dumb, and can fill in the gaps, if the story warrants further reading. If the Z-wing stealth fighter (class 3) is about to go into glorious battle, I want the pilot to switch his shields to max and make things blow up; what I don't want it to be told that he has to energise the Zygollian circuits to warm up the Quark crystal while feeding in 84,476 volts from the... you get the idea. Your story is about people, what they do, how they interact, living, loving, dying - eternal themes. Use the machinery and technology to carry your story, not to be bogged down by it.

DarkHorse220 · 05-29-2008, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike C

Lin made a valid point about infodumps. Do you want to inject 'real' science into the story because it progresses the story, or because you want to show off your scientific knowledge?

Consider that you may find yourself explaining how an energy shield or suchlike works. How do you do that without putting the whole story on pause while you introduce a stilted and cliché scene of the chief engineer explaining to the rookie pilot how it works, or something equally painful?

This is where amateur SF writers tend to foul up, because it's a fine line.

In simple terms, you can't butcher known science. If you're describing the energy shield in the first place, you've already messed up. Energy shields aren't plausible based on known science; in that case, you'll be doing good to just say "it works". Deal with the effects and handwave the causes as much as possible.

This works because it doesn't detract from knowns, though. An energy shield is more an engineering problem than it is a violation of known physics.

What this also means is that you have to operate within physics wherever possible -- because detracting or not, if you're doing things like having guys breathe in open space without a suit, or ignoring how objects move in space, or any other blatant violation of known quantities, you're going to have a lot of 'splaining to do.

There's a difference in the two concepts: the former, describing how the fictional shield works, is pure technobabble. You see this a lot in Star Trek; and in limited quantities, it can be useful. But it's pure made-up BS, which needs to be kept to a minimum.

The latter, on the other hand, well....that's what will cripple a story's suspension of disbelief. Compare something like Star Wars to Space Ghost.

Star Wars is believable, even if it tends to crap all over science, because it sticks to the rules -- it's consistent, relying on effects instead of technobabble. It also doesn't totally throw out known science where there's no need to do so.

Space Ghost just craps all over science and doesn't bother trying to present any illusion of reality.

Quote:

This is where a lot of SF and fantasy writers foul up. You're creating a world that just 'is' - the reader isn't dumb, and can fill in the gaps, if the story warrants further reading. If the Z-wing stealth fighter (class 3) is about to go into glorious battle, I want the pilot to switch his shields to max and make things blow up; what I don't want it to be told that he has to energise the Zygollian circuits to warm up the Quark crystal while feeding in 84,476 volts from the... you get the idea. Your story is about people, what they do, how they interact, living, loving, dying - eternal themes. Use the machinery and technology to carry your story, not to be bogged down by it.

Your first example is how it is done by the guys that know what they're doing. Show, don't tell. Effects, not causes. We don't run around thinking how the engines in our cars work, and a good chunk of people couldn't tell you how it works. You put in gas, car goes.

The second example is the technobabble serving as a plot device. In limited doses, it works. Too much, and it gets silly.

The trick is to violate science only when it's necessary for the story. If not, keep it to what we know. If you pull a Space Ghost, it gets just as ridiculous and it will lose the reader. You may think it's only geeks, but if you catch a glaring error it can throw you right out of the story. Think of what would happen if you were writing a story about knights in the 14th century and had one of them make a reference to McDonald's.

This may sound restrictive, but it's really not. This kind of handwaving works in a lot of very effective SF. It's all about how you reveal the information.