[World Building] A Future History of Space Force

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Decision loops? If I have command decision elements on Europa and you are stuck on Earth responding by chucking missiles, presumably my OODA loop is a lot shorter for events nearer to Jupiter than Johannesburg.

And you don't have to budget delta-v for the missile to slow down and return, you can specialize its drive for short burns and intercepting evasive target, and since its small and unmanned losing a missile is not a big deal.

A network of intercommunicating vehicles are more targets and a bigger sensor network than just a mothership.

Missiles and unmanned vehicles are kind of interchangeable.

Edit: and if you think there may be trouble somewhere, its easier all around to send a versatile, manned vehicle that carries weapons than an unmanned weapon. And in a realistic setting, interplanetary voyages take a lot of time, so if you launch the missiles from lunar orbit when trouble breaks out it may be months or years before they reach the Jovian moons. Not exactly a quick response to a crisis!

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Why? The OP wants warships for 2120+ and we're on the edge of TL9 with no sign of anyone building any space combatants.

Actually, I'm pretty sure OP asked for a fictional history of space force, in the future. I responded with some data about *current* and near-future(in this decade) capabilities, and you're talking about 2120+ and lasers. What about the 2030s, 2040s, 2050s? Doesn't it make sense that capabilities would evolve from what is current, what is on the drawing board? There are current space based combative systems, it is a warfighting domain, and every indication is that it's going to get much more active.

This seems to be a consistent problem with science fiction settings, in that they want to jump straight into the lasers and railguns and fusion drives, but don't spend any real time thinking about the dramatic changes on the horizon. 20 years ago, when our dreams of spaceflight were breaking up over texas, and we were forced to bribing Roscosmos to put us into space, that could be understandable. But that was two decades ago, and the picture of what is happening is a lot different than it was.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

Actually, I'm pretty sure OP asked for a fictional history of space force, in the future. .

I just checked and while the thread title may hint at a "Future History of the Space Force" the body of his message was mostly concerned with when that Space Force moved out into the asteroid belt at a mature TL9.

I didn't see anything about technological evolution from a hypothetical TL8 set of space weapon systems.

We're also so late in TL8 that if they started building weapons for a hot war in Earth orbit tomorrow we'd be early TL9 before any of it was ready.

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

I just checked and while the thread title may hint at a "Future History of the Space Force" the body of his message was mostly concerned with when that Space Force moved out into the asteroid belt at a mature TL9.

I didn't see anything about technological evolution from a hypothetical TL8 set of space weapon systems.

We're also so late in TL8 that if they started building weapons for a hot war in Earth orbit tomorrow we'd be early TL9 before any of it was ready.

The TL9 Space Force capable of asteroid belt operations has to evolve from the current TL8 Space Force. TL9 does not appreciably change the surface-to-orbit problem any better than TL8 does, So chemical rockets will be the primary method of getting mass off earth and into orbit where it can do space force things until superscience is invoked. I don't know if reusable rockets are TL8 or TL9, but their reliable use will have a dramatic decrease in the cost to access space, somewhere between 10 to 100 times cheaper. We're talking about the capability to put four ISS stations into orbit in a year with a once a month launch cadence of an SM9 rocket. Having a lot of stuff in orbit isn't really that useful, unless you can go somewhere. And right now, all the go somewhere juice has to come from earth, but in the very near future, some of that go somewhere juice can come from the moon. There are a lot of hurdles to go over, but if launch cost can be removed as one, the others become much easier to work with.

Militaries evolve according to their mission requirements. Currently the Space Force has to deal with at least two adversaries who operate space craft that have offensive and hostile capabilities. China and Russia have both demonstrated the ability to field spacecraft that can approach other space craft at close distances and interfere or compromise the mission of friendly space craft. The US and China both have very similar capabilities when it comes to unmanned space planes, and those capabilities include the ability to deploy payloads that can intercept other space craft, and because of their interaction with the atmosphere as space planes, both platforms can manuever in ways that other space craft cannot. In addition, they have to contend with earth based anti space capabilities, which atleast four powers have demonstrated the capability to perform.

Space Force will evolve from these early years, and that will heavily influence their corporate identity and structure, as well as the designs of space craft they operate. One considerable constraint to consider is that much of this technology will be dual-use; an example being space junk interceptors. A small space craft that can rendezvous with another space craft and alter it's orbit can be used peacefully to clean up space junk, but can also be used aggressively to attack space assets. Space Superiority would be determined by who could field the best interceptors, capable of either disabling hostiles or eliminating threats to friendly space craft. This won't require lasers, so you can start using chemical rockets to put them into orbit at TL8.

One thing that may be important is the idea of hostages. An unmanned military spacecraft may be less "important" diplomatically, while a space craft with humans onboard may be considered a bit more seriously. If a regular supply of fuel/remass from lunar colonization is available, a "space base" manned space craft would not be a crazy idea. If this base was populated by humans, a rival power may be more reluctant to use force against it, for fear of equal retaliation. A conflict in space would pose considerable risk to any and all space based assets of any nation. Perhaps international condemnation may be a consideration.

Over the decades, space forces capabilities will grow. When NTRs become an acceptable option, they will dramatically expand the ability of space force to project power. A TL9 NTR can replicate a chemical rocket's performance rather well, and run off water, and with a bit of engineering, provide power when it's not providing thrust. I somewhat doubt that combat vessels will be manned: At cislunar distances, the additional mass for a crew is probably not worth it. NTRs will enable relatively easy access to the asteroid belt or mars: trips to either will likely resemble ballistic missile sub deployments.

The use of NTRs by spaceforce will almost certainly involve considerable interaction with the Navy, and while I am sure Space Force will retain it's identity, it will likely pick up a lot of navy flavor. Nuke School seems almost tailor made for people who will be operating an NTR. The air force simply won't have any relevant experience to borrow from. I generally figure that military forces will use NTRs before they become widespread civilian drives.

So a few decades into the future, there are sporadic missions towards mars(it's moons may hold considerable water, if engineering problems can be overcome) and the asteroid belts will be certain. Ships will refuel/remass in orbit, EML1 and 2 will become places of high activity. Space Force will have to maintain a presence here. Even using chemical rockets, these missions are possible with lunar refueling/remass. Space Force doesn't send missions to the asteroid belt: they either have people stationed at the belt location, or they just intercept things closer to earth.

One thing I don't like is the whole asteroid belt thing. There are plenty of rocks that will get close to earth to be intercepted and redirected towards earth orbit, that the asteroid belt is a bit far for. Yes, Pysche is a gold mine. But we don't need gold in cislunar space. We need volatiles and carbon. Fortunately: there are plenty of opportunities that come close to us, we don't really need to consider mars or the asteroid belt for decades. These decades will be the ones that form traditions in space force in the 2120s.

And then, some decades in the future, there's fusion, which really changes the way space travel works.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

Actually, I'm pretty sure OP asked for a fictional history of space force, in the future. I responded with some data about *current* and near-future(in this decade) capabilities, and you're talking about 2120+ and lasers. What about the 2030s, 2040s, 2050s? Doesn't it make sense that capabilities would evolve from what is current, what is on the drawing board? There are current space based combative systems, it is a warfighting domain, and every indication is that it's going to get much more active.

This seems to be a consistent problem with science fiction settings, in that they want to jump straight into the lasers and railguns and fusion drives, but don't spend any real time thinking about the dramatic changes on the horizon. 20 years ago, when our dreams of spaceflight were breaking up over texas, and we were forced to bribing Roscosmos to put us into space, that could be understandable. But that was two decades ago, and the picture of what is happening is a lot different than it was.

One problem is that since the 1960s, it has become less and less plausible that large numbers of human beings will ever be off earth. And its become even more implausible that large numbers of human beings might have space battles where dramatic decisions and teamwork decide the outcome. So if you want a story about space battles, its often best to wave your hands. That goes double if the story is homage to classic science fiction from around the 1950s when they had no idea that electronic computers were a really easy problem and keeping humans healthy outside the atmosphere is really hard (and that things would only get bigger faster and more energetic for a few more decades: when you had gone from the horse and buggy to the jet aircraft in 60 years, it was easier to imagine those pesky belters and their torchships).

[PTTG]

Missiles and drones are basically the same thing in space. But without an atmosphere, they mainly produce thermal effects, and those dissapate so rapidly with distance that you're much better off using a shaped charge to try to direct shrapnel at the target. And the ultimate evolution of a claymore-like shrapnel spray is... a gun.

A small, capable drone could aim to hit the enemy, then close the last 100m - 1km with bullets. Then it boosts its projectiles with its closing velocity.

Nuclear weapons are pretty unlikely unless something wild happens to fissile enrichment. It's not exactly easy to make wareheads. But if that does happen, then replace the gun with a casaba howitzer and have that close the final 100km instead.

But if you're playing with nukes, every fight is a draw. A nuclear blast in space won't immediately destroy ships unless it's VERY close, but will easily irradiate the crew. Presumably there's no humans anywhere near the nukes at that point.

Though come to think about that, if you have, say, space habitats which prohibit nuclear detonations within 10Mm or something, that makes for pretty large zones where boarding actions or at least dogfights are the only option. Worth considering.

[Polydamas]

Since manned spaceflight has always been tied up with nationalism, and military officers have always been a heavy share of US astronauts, it seems like one possibility would be one where US manned spaceflight militarizes, and the 'civilian'/'military' divide becomes less and less clear. This would also create sources of dramatic tension within a crew out of 1950s science fiction and later technothrillers.

Remember the Kzinti Lesson and the "space junk as its weight in dynamite" principle (or recent events at launch sites in TX). A powerful spacecraft does not need purpose-build weapons to be destructive!

It might be looking into how the Space Shuttle was designed to launch secret satellites for three-letter agencies (did those missions have crew with specific qualifications?), and if there is any imaginable spy equipment which you might want far enough out that the powers that be want to send it out with a babysitter or on a purely military vessel.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

It might be looking into how the Space Shuttle launched secret satellites for three-letter agencies (did those missions have crew with specific qualifications?), .

I think there were missions with publicly undefined payloads but "Secret Shuttle Launch" is way past "Jumbo Shrimp" as a contradiction in terms.

All Mission specialists had special (or "special") training and hiding "special" training in the astronaut corps would be as easy as hiding the launches was hard.

There's a small-ish NASA facility on the Virginia coast called "Wallops Flight Facility" that launches small-ish payloads into orbit but it appears to have Visitor's center. :)

More "secret" launches (and especially into polar orbits) would have occurred from Vandenberg AFB but those would have still rattled somebody's windows and been visible all along the Pacific Coast. At least it may not have a visitor's center.

There was a "Pegasus" launch vehicle that looked sort of like an unmanned X-15 and was similarly carried to launch altitude by a B-52. You might have been able to "secretly" launch one of those with no one knowing except for a bunch of Air Force personnel (flight crew, ground crew, tanker crew).

[Verjigorm]

The X-37B Has the capability of altering it's orbit through atmospheric interactions. I haven't seen concrete numbers, but I believe the alterations in orbit are considered significant. In addition it can carry and release some sort of payload. China possesses atleast one space plane of a similar design, with similar capabilities, and that has deployed small platforms in orbit. I believe China has demonstrated a small sat that can maneuver close and intercept other space craft.

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by PTTG

Missiles and drones are basically the same thing in space. But without an atmosphere, they mainly produce thermal effects, and those dissapate so rapidly with distance that you're much better off using a shaped charge to try to direct shrapnel at the target. And the ultimate evolution of a claymore-like shrapnel spray is... a gun.

A small, capable drone could aim to hit the enemy, then close the last 100m - 1km with bullets. Then it boosts its projectiles with its closing velocity.

Nuclear weapons are pretty unlikely unless something wild happens to fissile enrichment. It's not exactly easy to make wareheads. But if that does happen, then replace the gun with a casaba howitzer and have that close the final 100km instead.

But if you're playing with nukes, every fight is a draw. A nuclear blast in space won't immediately destroy ships unless it's VERY close, but will easily irradiate the crew. Presumably there's no humans anywhere near the nukes at that point.

Though come to think about that, if you have, say, space habitats which prohibit nuclear detonations within 10Mm or something, that makes for pretty large zones where boarding actions or at least dogfights are the only option. Worth considering.

Unguided projectiles are not going to be very effective past very short distances and very close relative speeds. Rendezvous in orbit is not easy, not by a long shot, and it gets harder if the target is capable of counter maneuver. Muzzle velocity for chemical slug throwers is pretty low, around 1 to 1.5km/sec in terms of deltaV, which isn't a lot of budget to close with the target. Even something like a 120mm cannon is only pushing around 1.75 km/sec.

At around 2.7ish km/sec, kinetic energy of a mass is essentially equivalent to the detonation of an equal mass of high explosive. A shipkiller projectile just has to be a solid, inert mass, moving at several kilometers a second. So a missile that's capable of mid course correction *and* a final boost to kill phase is going to out perform guns by substantial margin.