|
Post by kpatwin on Jan 21, 2018 20:25:04 GMT
What are some possible limitations on space-based weapons and combat craft that you think would arise if space fleets really did exist??
I'm currently working on a story/world idea set in an alternate early 21st century where space race replaced the arms race during Cold War, so the US and still-surviving USSR have deployed military hardware in space, including the commissioning of actual combat spaceships, with Earth-Moon system being the main theater of concern and token garrisons in other parts of the solar system. Extensive colonization and industrialization of Earth orbit has begun. Naturally both sides would no doubt want to impose limitations on what can and cannot be deployed. A few ideas I have are: - No nuclear warheads in space - detonation too close to Earth atmosphere could result in EMP effects that would potentially kill billions of people in its wake. - Limiting laser wavelengths - laser wavelengths cannot be below 315nm; shorter wavelengths increase risk of skin cancer and other health hazards (inspired by moratoriums on DPU rounds by some countries) - Limits on actual reactor sizes for nuclear powered craft - nuclear ships in space that suffer damage and lose containment too close to Earth could potentially release radioactivity into atmosphere. Limits on size and power of reactors would seem logical.
Please add onto this list or even tear this list apart if you want to. I am merely looking to brainstorm and find inspiration.
Real world examples of treaties include
- Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons: Banned the use of lasers designed to blind soldiers
- Convention on Cluster Munitions: Signatories agree to never use cluster bombs
- Early 20th Century Naval Treaties: limits of gun calibers to no more than 16in, ship displacement limits, fleet sizes for the major powers
- START treaties: reduction and limitation of strategic nuclear weapons
- ABM Treaty: limits on anti-ballistic missile technology
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Jan 21, 2018 20:29:37 GMT
What are some possible limitations on space-based weapons and combat craft that you think would arise if space fleets really did exist?? I'm currently working on a story/world idea set in an alternate early 21st century where space race replaced the arms race during Cold War, so the US and still-surviving USSR have deployed military hardware in space, including the commissioning of actual combat spaceships, with Earth-Moon system being the main theater of concern and token garrisons in other parts of the solar system. Extensive colonization and industrialization of Earth orbit has begun. Naturally both sides would no doubt want to impose limitations on what can and cannot be deployed. A few ideas I have are: - No nuclear warheads in space - detonation too close to Earth atmosphere could result in EMP effects that would potentially kill billions of people in its wake. - Limiting laser wavelengths - laser wavelengths cannot be below 315nm; shorter wavelengths increase risk of skin cancer and other health hazards (inspired by moratoriums on DPU rounds by some countries) - Limits on actual reactor sizes for nuclear powered craft - nuclear ships in space that suffer damage and lose containment too close to Earth could potentially release radioactivity into atmosphere. Limits on size and power of reactors would seem logical. Please add onto this list or even tear this list apart if you want to. I am merely looking to brainstorm and find inspiration. Real world examples of treaties include - Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons: Banned the use of lasers designed to blind soldiers - Convention on Cluster Munitions: Signatories agree to never use cluster bombs - Early 20th Century Naval Treaties: limits of gun calibers to no more than 16in, ship displacement limits, fleet sizes for the major powers - START treaties: reduction and limitation of strategic nuclear weapons - ABM Treaty: limits on anti-ballistic missile technology Blinding weapons that don't permanently blind are seemingly allowed. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personnel_halting_and_stimulation_response_rifle
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Jan 21, 2018 20:33:00 GMT
Size doesn't matter in terms of nuclear reactors, it's the fuel enrichment.
I propose, no weapons grade fuel in nuclear reactors?
|
|
|
Post by thorneel on Jan 23, 2018 21:38:29 GMT
No nukes on Earth orbit isn't only for EMP risks (otherwise, small nukes could still be allowed). The other big problem is filling the Van Allen belt with nasty radioactive fallout that takes years to disperse - the Starfish Prime tests probably broke or decreased service life of several satellites that way. With extensive industrialisation of Earth orbit, and probably increasing human presence, that's the last thing you want.
Actually, that's the second last thing you want. The first one is a runaway Kessler cascade. Maybe projectile weapons should be forbidden in Earth orbit as well?
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Jan 24, 2018 1:25:56 GMT
No nukes on Earth orbit isn't only for EMP risks (otherwise, small nukes could still be allowed). The other big problem is filling the Van Allen belt with nasty radioactive fallout that takes years to disperse - the Starfish Prime tests probably broke or decreased service life of several satellites that way. With extensive industrialisation of Earth orbit, and probably increasing human presence, that's the last thing you want. Actually, that's the second last thing you want. The first one is a runaway Kessler cascade. Maybe projectile weapons should be forbidden in Earth orbit as well? Projectile weapons generally aren't that bad, but that assumes that the atmosphere still functions as it should for eliminating small objects entering it. Restrictions on material composition, mass and size should be enforced though. Granted that might have a knock on effect on "orbital bombardment laws", if applicable.
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Jan 27, 2018 1:56:13 GMT
Projectiles with muzzle velocity less than planetary escape velocity may be banned, to avoid potential collateral damage and Kessler issues. That includes many regular chemical guns, but rail/coil guns are mostly fine.
American nuclear submarines use over 90% uranium enrichment, so that probably won't be outright banned. Proliferation concerns may cause some upper limits to be put in place for most countries though, like 50% enrichment or so.
Reactor cores may be required to be capable of surviving re-entry intact, to avoid contamination. This makes more sense than limiting size.
Laser wavelength limits, if any, would probably be banning x-rays & gamma rays, not ultraviolet. UV doesn't penetrate the hull nearly as well. Due to the inverse square falloff of intensity, and large ranges in space, collateral damage is highly unlikely from lasers.
Particle beams may be banned, due to Bremsstrahlung radiation causing gamma rays in the target material, and also due to them being ionizing radiation with high penetration themselves.
|
|
|
Post by antonindvorak on Jul 12, 2018 16:27:13 GMT
Projectiles with muzzle velocity less than planetary escape velocity may be banned, to avoid potential collateral damage and Kessler issues. That includes many regular chemical guns, but rail/coil guns are mostly fine. And then I shoot my slightly above planetary escape velocity gun retrograde ... ... or my faster projectiles retrograde while being on a hyperbolic trajectory ...
|
|
|
Post by mmmfriedrice on Jul 13, 2018 21:31:00 GMT
Projectiles with muzzle velocity less than planetary escape velocity may be banned, to avoid potential collateral damage and Kessler issues. That includes many regular chemical guns, but rail/coil guns are mostly fine. And then I shoot my slightly above planetary escape velocity gun retrograde ... ... or my faster projectiles retrograde while being on a hyperbolic trajectory ... A little bit of SMAC might happen; everyone will gang up on you and unleash their gigaton nukes/asteroid mass drivers etc. on your habitats.
|
|
|
Post by doctorsquared on Jul 13, 2018 23:08:31 GMT
Limits on NTR usage and output, considering that the exhaust is a thermal and electromagnetic radiation hazard you probably don't want to cruise out of drydock or come near civilian stations/colonies with one of those burning. Designs would either need combustion rockets, MPDs, resistojets, or even compressed gas RCS thrusters to 'push' you most of the way until you reach far enough away to fire the NTR
|
|
ghgh
Full Member
Still trying to make kinetics work.
Posts: 136
|
Post by ghgh on Jul 14, 2018 0:09:24 GMT
At the rate it gets dispersed the NTR rad hazard would be insignificant compared to the radiation given off by the sun. Drydocks would be shielded enough to prevent the sun from cooking them. The reactor on the NTR, while it will have less shielding (from the armor) than the core reactor, will still have enough to limit the exposure.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Jul 14, 2018 8:59:54 GMT
And then I shoot my slightly above planetary escape velocity gun retrograde ... ... or my faster projectiles retrograde while being on a hyperbolic trajectory ... A little bit of SMAC might happen; everyone will gang up on you and unleash their gigaton nukes/asteroid mass drivers etc. on your habitats. Or it will be treated as unexploded ordnance in contrast to purposefully setting up minefields - just stuff that happens, and treaties still mostly seen as working.
Limits on NTR usage and output, considering that the exhaust is a thermal and electromagnetic radiation hazard you probably don't want to cruise out of drydock or come near civilian stations/colonies with one of those burning. Designs would either need combustion rockets, MPDs, resistojets, or even compressed gas RCS thrusters to 'push' you most of the way until you reach far enough away to fire the NTR Or you could call a tug. Besides, solid core NTRs won't be spewing much radiation in the exhaust. Unshielded reactors (or CMs - what's with all the flying nukes?) are generally going to be problematic in themselves, as they will vastly restrict manoeuvring. I expect military ships at least to use enough shielding (probably mainly on CMs - but it depends on stuff like how often do you need to move unshielded personnel near friendlies, VS how often does it happen in hostile actions) to allow close approaches in any orientation. Personally I tend to slap on as much shielding as possible to not have radiation as a factor when laying out my ships. You don't want to say "I would really like some NTR RCS right here for optimum manoeuvrability, but they would cook my crew", you want to just plop them when you want them and be done with it.
|
|
|
Post by mmmfriedrice on Jul 14, 2018 16:01:06 GMT
About those retrograde projectiles, I'm thinking more of the hyperbolic situation or intentional bombardment to trigger Kessler syndrome.
UXO-esque engagements would probably require some kind of supraplanetary organization like the UN to maybe drop light sanctions or pressure a polity into paying for damages, and at least with COADE, I don't think that's going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Anon1 on Aug 31, 2018 18:32:11 GMT
I seriously doubt that anyone would ever build a spacecraft with less than a fully shielded NTR if for no other reason that economics. If your NTR is not fully radiation shielded, then would be so radioactive as to be unserviceable; so when the current fuel runs out, you have to throw away a billion dollar or multi-billion dollar engine. By just adding sufficient radiation shielding, you can re-use said engine for decades. People creating designs of nuclear rockets with only a shadow shield are not thinking like investors or legislators. That may work for a one-off NASA science mission; but you are not going to get an economy in space, or a military in space throwing away expensive equipment like that. Plus, you have the problem of what to do with all of the highly radioactive spent engines? Real world politicians would look at the economics of throwing these things away and tell the end-users to just accept lower acceleration and longer trip times; because they are fully shielding these things or the people with the pocketbooks aren't paying for them. This is also why I don't expect to see nuclear powered missiles in space, because they would be entirely uneconomical.
In any event, if a fully shielded nuclear engine/reactor was de-orbited and hit the ground, then there would be a hole in the ground with an intact engine/reactor inside of it.
|
|
|
Post by treptoplax on Aug 31, 2018 20:03:20 GMT
I seriously doubt that anyone would ever build a spacecraft with less than a fully shielded NTR if for no other reason that economics. If your NTR is not fully radiation shielded, then would be so radioactive as to be unserviceable; so when the current fuel runs out, you have to throw away a billion dollar or multi-billion dollar engine. By just adding sufficient radiation shielding, you can re-use said engine for decades. People creating designs of nuclear rockets with only a shadow shield are not thinking like investors or legislators. That may work for a one-off NASA science mission; but you are not going to get an economy in space, or a military in space throwing away expensive equipment like that. Plus, you have the problem of what to do with all of the highly radioactive spent engines? Real world politicians would look at the economics of throwing these things away and tell the end-users to just accept lower acceleration and longer trip times; because they are fully shielding these things or the people with the pocketbooks aren't paying for them. This is also why I don't expect to see nuclear powered missiles in space, because they would be entirely uneconomical. In any event, if a fully shielded nuclear engine/reactor was de-orbited and hit the ground, then there would be a hole in the ground with an intact engine/reactor inside of it. Well, the pricing of ships in CDE strongly implies that that the shipyards are more-or-less giant 3D printers, and that there's little cost to machine complexity. The cost of the engines is almost entirely the radioactive materials; once they're expended you may as well toss the engine, the savings from refueling it instead of building a whole new one are not a huge deal.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Aug 31, 2018 20:37:52 GMT
I seriously doubt that anyone would ever build a spacecraft with less than a fully shielded NTR if for no other reason that economics. If your NTR is not fully radiation shielded, then would be so radioactive as to be unserviceable; so when the current fuel runs out, you have to throw away a billion dollar or multi-billion dollar engine. By just adding sufficient radiation shielding, you can re-use said engine for decades. People creating designs of nuclear rockets with only a shadow shield are not thinking like investors or legislators. That may work for a one-off NASA science mission; but you are not going to get an economy in space, or a military in space throwing away expensive equipment like that. Plus, you have the problem of what to do with all of the highly radioactive spent engines? Real world politicians would look at the economics of throwing these things away and tell the end-users to just accept lower acceleration and longer trip times; because they are fully shielding these things or the people with the pocketbooks aren't paying for them. This is also why I don't expect to see nuclear powered missiles in space, because they would be entirely uneconomical. In any event, if a fully shielded nuclear engine/reactor was de-orbited and hit the ground, then there would be a hole in the ground with an intact engine/reactor inside of it. Well, the pricing of ships in CDE strongly implies that that the shipyards are more-or-less giant 3D printers, and that there's little cost to machine complexity. The cost of the engines is almost entirely the radioactive materials; once they're expended you may as well toss the engine, the savings from refueling it instead of building a whole new one are not a huge deal. I really hope this changes at some point. Manufacturing to higher tolerances (lower precision) should mean manufacturing cheaper.
|
|