Atarlost

Well-known member
A spaceship is tiny when compared to a planet and they're vastly more maneuverable than a planet side installation.

Consider the mass differences:

Space Shuttle: 74 tons dry and small enough for three to be displayed on an NFL football field with room to spare.
Earth: 6.585 billion trillion short tons.

Something the size of the Space Shuttle can avoid getting hit by practically everything unguided headed its way at starship battle ranges. Something on a planet the size of Earth can not.

If you have an effective orbit to surface weapon on something the size of a space shuttle you don't need to hit a planet because you're trying to hit weapons small enough to use the SCUD paradigm. You need to hit something the size of a space shuttle. In fact you need to hit all of the somethings the size of a space shuttle which can be buried or submersible or disguised as mundane buildings or fishing trawlers. The seagoing ones can dodge and unlike the attacking spaceships they don't have to expend propellant to do so. Can you hit millions of hidden and or submerged targets faster than your evasive maneuvers run you out of propellant? If you can on something the size of a space shuttle your propulsion tech is so good that you can make planet crackers so easily that if you don't also have planetary shields that make orbital bombardment an exercise in futility you either have a demilitarized MAD fearing galaxy or you don't have intact habitable planets. Unless you're writing about a civilization that just discovered them and is demonstrating the "poison pill technology" solution to the Fermi Paradox.

Also, starship battle ranges are by definition the range at which they can be hit.
 

bintananth

behind a desk
If you have an effective orbit to surface weapon on something the size of a space shuttle you don't need to hit a planet because you're trying to hit weapons small enough to use the SCUD paradigm. You need to hit something the size of a space shuttle. In fact you need to hit all of the somethings the size of a space shuttle which can be buried or submersible or disguised as mundane buildings or fishing trawlers. The seagoing ones can dodge and unlike the attacking spaceships they don't have to expend propellant to do so. Can you hit millions of hidden and or submerged targets faster than your evasive maneuvers run you out of propellant? If you can on something the size of a space shuttle your propulsion tech is so good that you can make planet crackers so easily that if you don't also have planetary shields that make orbital bombardment an exercise in futility you either have a demilitarized MAD fearing galaxy or you don't have intact habitable planets. Unless you're writing about a civilization that just discovered them and is demonstrating the "poison pill technology" solution to the Fermi Paradox.

Also, starship battle ranges are by definition the range at which they can be hit.
In the story I'm sharing here there's an ancient power which may or may not have witnessed the Big Bang. Their smallest warships are 10-12 times as massive as the space shuttle when fully fueled and completely outclass something like the 44 million ton B5 Sharlins and Omegas to the degree of "you must be joking" and "you actually built that". Their largest ones are 3/4 the size of a Whitestar and one those in low orbit above a planet anywhere in the Virgo Supercluster is "almost, but not entirely unlike" winning a lottery jackpot because anyone who can see one using eyeball Mk.1 would probably think standing inside a nuclear reactor that's undergoing a meltdown is a safe place to hide.
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
The technological context influences a lot this sort of thing. Let's take Traveller and Ground Control.

In Traveller's case, you'll need ground forces because of this little thing called a meson site. To give you an idea, a meson site is a meson cannon (which lols anything not a meson screen) buried in a mountain/trench/ground and pretty much takes care of the majority of the orbitals. You'll need a SpecOps team or small ground attack force to get onto the planet and take out the sensor sites before you can leverage your ortillery.

In the game series Ground Control, he who holds the orbitals does win everything... only if you don't have anti-orbital artillery systems and theater/strategic shield systems. Few objects and weapon systems can penetrate these shields, making ground combat the only way forward.
 

Doomsought

Well-known member
True. However, in a setting where space travel is easy enough that planetary invasions are on the table "he who controls the orbitals effectively controls the planet".
No he doesn't. Not unless all he wants to win out of the conflict is a rock covered in craters.

You need ground forces to have any type of victory other than genocide.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
The only reason we currently think controlling the orbitals means controlling the planet is because right now, we have a great deal of trouble reaching orbit and no surface-to-orbit weaponry, so for us doing so is true. If every random SAM launcher had the ability to hit a satellite two things would be true: there'd be precious few satellites and space stations left, and nobody would consider being in orbit anything but a death trap.

I'm of the opinion that having control of the orbitals is much like having superior artillery, you can hit the enemy hard with strikes but can't actually control the terrain, and there's effectively zero cover so if the enemy has any Surface to Orbit ability you're quite hosed. Artillery is really, really good but nobody ever won a war using nothing but artillery.
 

Doomsought

Well-known member
You don't even need good SAM, you just need to know what the enemy wants, and then stick your defenses tight with that while telling the enemy "Just because we we cannot win does not mean we cannot make you lose"
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
No he doesn't. Not unless all he wants to win out of the conflict is a rock covered in craters.

You need ground forces to have any type of victory other than genocide.
That isn't really the case. We're hitting the point in terms of military tech that, well, militia can't win without a) a nation-state's backing (like the Taliban and Pakistan) and b) being a military force with the heavy ordinance and sophisticated training that it requires. If you hold the orbitals, then you've got free reign. The only reason we're not turning whateverstan into craters is that we've got rules to follow in war or we'll get slammed in the PR department. Since that grade of military tech requires a lot of infrastructure that can't be hardened effectively...

... I think you can put two and two together.
The only reason we currently think controlling the orbitals means controlling the planet is because right now, we have a great deal of trouble reaching orbit and no surface-to-orbit weaponry, so for us doing so is true. If every random SAM launcher had the ability to hit a satellite two things would be true: there'd be precious few satellites and space stations left, and nobody would consider being in orbit anything but a death trap.

I'm of the opinion that having control of the orbitals is much like having superior artillery, you can hit the enemy hard with strikes but can't actually control the terrain, and there's effectively zero cover so if the enemy has any Surface to Orbit ability you're quite hosed. Artillery is really, really good but nobody ever won a war using nothing but artillery.
Actually, there is this little thing called effective range in that equation. Unless you've got some seriously fantastical weapons (like Traveller's meson guns), you're going to accept the fact that you can only control so much space. You can't use railguns because, to get to the orbitals, you'll have your very slug explode from the atmospheric friction (meaning you can't use StO kinetic weapon sites on planets/planetoids with an atmosphere). Missiles are interceptable. DEWs have atmospheric attenuation effects you have to figure into your effective range.

This leads to the situation where you've got limited options for defense. That is why anything resembling 'hard' scifi has the 'he owns the orbitals, wins everything' mantra.



In essence, if you want to engage in planetary warfare that isn't just 'ship shows up and bombs you to oblivion', you'll need shields like the above to have a hope to force a siege. That or some Battletech style rules of war that has the unspoken rule of 'break them and we'll simply nuke you to oblivion'...
You don't even need good SAM, you just need to know what the enemy wants, and then stick your defenses tight with that while telling the enemy "Just because we we cannot win does not mean we cannot make you lose"
That isn't exactly the case, as doing that would likey cause the enemy to go 'if you want to play that way then...' and bomb you to oblivion.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
That isn't really the case. We're hitting the point in terms of military tech that, well, militia can't win without a) a nation-state's backing (like the Taliban and Pakistan) and b) being a military force with the heavy ordinance and sophisticated training that it requires. If you hold the orbitals, then you've got free reign. The only reason we're not turning whateverstan into craters is that we've got rules to follow in war or we'll get slammed in the PR department. Since that grade of military tech requires a lot of infrastructure that can't be hardened effectively...

... I think you can put two and two together.

Actually, there is this little thing called effective range in that equation. Unless you've got some seriously fantastical weapons (like Traveller's meson guns), you're going to accept the fact that you can only control so much space. You can't use railguns because, to get to the orbitals, you'll have your very slug explode from the atmospheric friction (meaning you can't use StO kinetic weapon sites on planets/planetoids with an atmosphere). Missiles are interceptable. DEWs have atmospheric attenuation effects you have to figure into your effective range.
Energy weapons from space to the surface have the same atmospheric attenuation effects as energy weapons from the surface to space. Kinetics from space to the surface suffer the same friction and will burn up unless they're made from the same miracle alloy (or tungsten) that slugs fired from the surface are. Missiles fired from orbit to the surface are just as interceptable as missiles fired from the surface to orbit. You see, the atmosphere basically provides the same amount of shielding, and the distance between both of them, equally, because, and this may be surprising, the amount of atmosphere between space and surface is equal to the amount of atmosphere between surface and space. The sole difference will be gravity affecting projectile weapons on the gravity side, but by the time a civilization is advanced enough to build orbital-occupying fleets, that amount of energy will be a rounding error.

Except, except, that the surface can afford to build a laser with a focusing lens as large as an entire starship, or have a network of kinetic and missile sites spanning multiple continents that outmass an entire fleet in Electronic Warfare gear alone, much less the number of missiles, much less launchers those ships could possibly try to counter-fire. Because unless your fleet is composed of ships that Dahak wants to be when it grows up, the fleet ships are so hopelessly tiny compared to the available space and energy production of a planet they might as well be a handful of balsa wood model planes powered by rubber bands being sent against a modern aircraft carrier group.

This is why only tediously unimaginative fiction today postulates that controlling the orbitals is worth jack unless you're either fighting a planet of Space Amish or have such a tech advantage the surface might as well be Amish.
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
Energy weapons from space to the surface have the same atmospheric attenuation effects as energy weapons from the surface to space. Kinetics from space to the surface suffer the same friction and will burn up unless they're made from the same miracle alloy (or tungsten) that slugs fired from the surface are. Missiles fired from orbit to the surface are just as interceptable as missiles fired from the surface to orbit. You see, the atmosphere basically provides the same amount of shielding, and the distance between both of them, equally, because, and this may be surprising, the amount of atmosphere between space and surface is equal to the amount of atmosphere between surface and space. The sole difference will be gravity affecting projectile weapons on the gravity side, but by the time a civilization is advanced enough to build orbital-occupying fleets, that amount of energy will be a rounding error.

Except, except, that the surface can afford to build a laser with a focusing lens as large as an entire starship, or have a network of kinetic and missile sites spanning multiple continents that outmass an entire fleet in Electronic Warfare gear alone, much less the number of missiles, much less launchers those ships could possibly try to counter-fire. Because unless your fleet is composed of ships that Dahak wants to be when it grows up, the fleet ships are so hopelessly tiny compared to the available space and energy production of a planet they might as well be a handful of balsa wood model planes powered by rubber bands being sent against a modern aircraft carrier group.

This is why only tediously unimaginative fiction today postulates that controlling the orbitals is worth jack unless you're either fighting a planet of Space Amish or have such a tech advantage the surface might as well be Amish.
That is actually laughable, given that 1) doing that would be horrifically expensive (as in 'ruin your military budget forever' levels of expensive) because of construction and maintenance costs (which is why most scifi tends to have StO guns to be modified spaceship weapons), 2) the moment you use things like, oh, nuclear lightbulbs using water propellant your DV goes way up, 3) the ships can dictate the time of engagement while the planet doesn't.

A space fleet can project force, a planet really can't... and we've seen what happens when a military can't project force.
 

Doomsought

Well-known member
That isn't exactly the case, as doing that would likey cause the enemy to go 'if you want to play that way then...' and bomb you to oblivion.
It has never worked out that way in the entire history of human conflict. Literally every war that the United States has lost since the end of world war II has been proof that you are wrong.

Morale exists, and just because you are sitting in space ships will not make the caustic effects of passive agressive tactics on morale go away. Unless you have genocide as a cultural goal since before the conflict began, your troops will just not have the stomach for it.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
That is actually laughable, given that 1) doing that would be horrifically expensive (as in 'ruin your military budget forever' levels of expensive) because of construction and maintenance costs (which is why most scifi tends to have StO guns to be modified spaceship weapons), 2) the moment you use things like, oh, nuclear lightbulbs using water propellant your DV goes way up, 3) the ships can dictate the time of engagement while the planet doesn't.

A space fleet can project force, a planet really can't... and we've seen what happens when a military can't project force.
Really, It's horrifically expensive to build and maintain surface weapons, which have comfortable working conditions, with nearby civilian amenities and life support provided, but somehow building the weapons and flying them through space under very harsh conditions isn't? It seems like your reasoning always requires that the space side get a pass, the atmosphere becomes one-way for ships, their maintenance doesn't exist, etc.

The actual reason scifi tends to have limited StO guns based on ships is that a realistically designed world where planets can just turtle behind a wall of missiles means there's precious little point to actual space battles, and the book/universe becomes boring without them. We do have a halfway decent example of what it's like when a military force is purely defensive in Switzerland, which has precious little ability to project power past it's borders but incredible defensive terrain, and most of their population is armed and trained to fight in that terrain, turning them into a brutal nut to crack. And... they seem to be doing fine.
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
Really, It's horrifically expensive to build and maintain surface weapons, which have comfortable working conditions, with nearby civilian amenities and life support provided, but somehow building the weapons and flying them through space under very harsh conditions isn't? It seems like your reasoning always requires that the space side get a pass, the atmosphere becomes one-way for ships, their maintenance doesn't exist, etc.

The actual reason scifi tends to have limited StO guns based on ships is that a realistically designed world where planets can just turtle behind a wall of missiles means there's precious little point to actual space battles, and the book/universe becomes boring without them. We do have a halfway decent example of what it's like when a military force is purely defensive in Switzerland, which has precious little ability to project power past it's borders but incredible defensive terrain, and most of their population is armed and trained to fight in that terrain, turning them into a brutal nut to crack. And... they seem to be doing fine.
From what I understand, that's not really the case. Space is, compared to a planet like Earth, quite tame when it comes to maintenance. The lack of defensive barriers works both ways as well, meaning that your StO missiles will be detected before they hit their target. You might have the ability to spam missiles but, so far, we're getting to the point that to do so you'll need a lot of ruinously expensive missiles to do so.

At least with our technological context so far.

If that technological context changes... then anything is game.
It has never worked out that way in the entire history of human conflict. Literally every war that the United States has lost since the end of world war II has been proof that you are wrong.

Morale exists, and just because you are sitting in space ships will not make the caustic effects of passive agressive tactics on morale go away. Unless you have genocide as a cultural goal since before the conflict began, your troops will just not have the stomach for it.
Only because it had other powers that have a vested interest in the rules of war. If those rules of war aren't enforced though... well, let's just say humans are very willing to massacre people as part of the operating procedure. Historically.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
From what I understand, that's not really the case. Space is, compared to a planet like Earth, quite tame when it comes to maintenance. The lack of defensive barriers works both ways as well, meaning that your StO missiles will be detected before they hit their target. You might have the ability to spam missiles but, so far, we're getting to the point that to do so you'll need a lot of ruinously expensive missiles to do so.

At least with our technological context so far.

If that technological context changes... then anything is game.
I have trouble believing space is so much more forgiving, when the temperature can be -300 in the shadow and +225 a few inches away in the sun, the radiation levels are higher than Chernobyl, and an impact with a stray fleck of paint can carry as much energy as being hit by a bullet on earth.

StO missiles will be detected, however note that the defensive barrier actually doesn't work both ways there. Missiles from earth will be detected only when they get away from ground clutter and planetary background while orbit to surface missiles will be detected at once, thus anti-orbital weapons have a small advantage in time between detection and impact. Add in that the planet will have millions of times more space to put point defenses and missile spam very heavily favors the planet.
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
I have trouble believing space is so much more forgiving, when the temperature can be -300 in the shadow and +225 a few inches away in the sun, the radiation levels are higher than Chernobyl, and an impact with a stray fleck of paint can carry as much energy as being hit by a bullet on earth.
Compare that to all the atmospheric effects, saltwater (seriously, saltwater has some serious corrosive effects, enough to limit what sort of materials can be used anywhere near seawater), sand, the weather... it's pretty tame in comparison.
StO missiles will be detected, however note that the defensive barrier actually doesn't work both ways there. Missiles from earth will be detected only when they get away from ground clutter and planetary background while orbit to surface missiles will be detected at once, thus anti-orbital weapons have a small advantage in time between detection and impact. Add in that the planet will have millions of times more space to put point defenses and missile spam very heavily favors the planet.
Why do you think all of our ICBM warning missile satellites are in space? Because the moment they leave their subs/silos/trucks, they get detected rather easily anymore. Hell, it's thanks to those satellites that a surprise first strike is impossible. So unless you've got some serious minvoski particle interference...
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
Compare that to all the atmospheric effects, saltwater (seriously, saltwater has some serious corrosive effects, enough to limit what sort of materials can be used anywhere near seawater), sand, the weather... it's pretty tame in comparison.
Yes, that would explain why costs 500 million to ruggedize a basic satellite, not launch mind you that's just construction costs. Meanwhile, you could buy enough seagoing craft to fill a harbor for that.

Why do you think all of our ICBM warning missile satellites are in space? Because the moment they leave their subs/silos/trucks, they get detected rather easily anymore. Hell, it's thanks to those satellites that a surprise first strike is impossible. So unless you've got some serious minvoski particle interference...
They're in space because you can't see China and Russia's silos from the California border due to the curvature of the earth being in the way. On the other hand, for observing space we have very little in the way of telescopes compared to the ground for good reason.
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
Yes, that would explain why costs 500 million to ruggedize a basic satellite, not launch mind you that's just construction costs. Meanwhile, you could buy enough seagoing craft to fill a harbor for that.
Care to quote someone else, someone more reliable because last I've checked the cost is mostly in the launch.
They're in space because you can't see China and Russia's silos from the California border due to the curvature of the earth being in the way. On the other hand, for observing space we have very little in the way of telescopes compared to the ground for good reason.
That isn't 100% the case. At lower orbits, that's a problem, the satellites for early warning tend to be higher up like GPS satellites... at least last that I remember.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
Care to quote someone else, someone more reliable because last I've checked the cost is mostly in the launch.
Your checks were mistaken.
Satellites are not cheap business. They cost a lot of money to design, construct, launch and monitor. Just how much money? If you have at least $290 million in your bank account, that money can go into making a satellite that can track and monitor hurricanes. Add about $100 million dollars more if you want a satellite that carries a missile-warning device.
...
Another factor that contributes to the expense associated with satellites is the cost of putting one into orbit. It is estimated that a single satellite launch can range in cost from a low of about $50 million to a high of about $400 million


  • Satellite manufacture: $150M
  • Satellite launch: $120M
  • Launch insurance: $20M
  • In-orbit insurance: $20M
  • Satellite operations (15 years): $15M

Individual AEHF satellites, exclusive of launch expenses, cost US$850 million.

And while we're at it:
A space suit costs a cool 12 million due to a number of defensive systems. Coincidentally, Levis and a tank top are somewhat less. Wonder why? Could it be the harsh environment involved?
That isn't 100% the case. At lower orbits, that's a problem, the satellites for early warning tend to be higher up like GPS satellites... at least last that I remember.
What's that have to do with not putting detection sensors that have to see Russia and China on the ground?
 
Last edited:

The Whispering Monk

Well-known member
Osaul
That isn't really the case. We're hitting the point in terms of military tech that, well, militia can't win without a) a nation-state's backing (like the Taliban and Pakistan) and b) being a military force with the heavy ordinance and sophisticated training that it requires. If you hold the orbitals, then you've got free reign. The only reason we're not turning whateverstan into craters is that we've got rules to follow in war or we'll get slammed in the PR department. Since that grade of military tech requires a lot of infrastructure that can't be hardened effectively...
You're making a LOT of assumptions here, especially about future sci-fi tech.

1. The equipment may be self sustaining and stupid easy to fix. Maybe it just needs base elements for a nanite harvester to repair itself.

2. Training is not necessarily stupid expensive for a planetary govt., especially one that someone thinks is valuable enough to dedicate enough Space/Assault forces to conquer.

3. Holding the high ground does not = Autowin. You're facts there are just plain wrong.

4. If you're willing to just use Ortillery to conquer than you're not conquering, your destroying. Thus there's no reason to even get close to the planet.

Actually, there is this little thing called effective range in that equation. Unless you've got some seriously fantastical weapons (like Traveller's meson guns), you're going to accept the fact that you can only control so much space. You can't use railguns because, to get to the orbitals, you'll have your very slug explode from the atmospheric friction (meaning you can't use StO kinetic weapon sites on planets/planetoids with an atmosphere). Missiles are interceptable. DEWs have atmospheric attenuation effects you have to figure into your effective range.
Inert slugs from a rail system will not explode from atmospheric fiction. They might very well shed layers. Hell, there's NO reason to add an explosive system to something whose kinetic energy is simply so massive the explosive part is a hiccup.

As for DEW's, who says that the system is using something that degrades in atmo to any significant degree?

As for missiles, what if the missiles are able to accelerate at over 1000 gravities. Time impact is stupid short, and with penetration aids, whatever active defenses may not be able to respond effectively.

As I said at the beginning, you are making a HUGE number of assumptions that aren't warranted.
 

Navarro

Well-known member
The other point to bring up is that a Space-going Warship may not need to even be in close orbit or 'in the neighborhood' to be a threat to a planetary body.

Harrington-verse is a prime example of this type of weaponry. Take missile that weighs anywhere from 20-100 tons. Accelerate said missile at around 1,000 gravities, and aim it at a planet. The sheer kinetic energy of a C-fractional stike is...well, frankly inconceivable. It easily passes Gigaton range yields. A few of those and the planet is just toast, at least for life on the surface.

At that level of effect, the only thing holding people back is the accepted rules of war.

So, really, if you care about sentient life, you need a ground force. If you don't, be prepared to slaughter your way through Billions (maybe Trillions) of sentient beings...and then have it done to your worlds.

Another issue is that if you're attacking an enemy planet, it's largely because you want what that planet has reasonably intact. Which is another factor cutting against the "nuke 'em till they glow" line of thought, because all the infrastructure and resources you destroy by glassing a planet are infrastructure and resources you don't get access to.
 

bintananth

behind a desk
Another issue is that if you're attacking an enemy planet, it's largely because you want what that planet has reasonably intact. Which is another factor cutting against the "nuke 'em till they glow" line of thought, because all the infrastructure and resources you destroy by glassing a planet are infrastructure and resources you don't get access to.
You might just want to destroy what's on it, at which point "nuke 'em till they glow" is an entirely reasonable course of action along the lines of a strategic bombing raid.

Suppose it's something the size of Ceres and a major source of enemy starship components. A gigaton Ka-Boom will do unkind things to whatever's on the surface and the enemy's ability to keep their fleet operational.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top