What's the difference between a space missile and a space torpedo?
>>62891694Torpedoes have nearly unlimited fuel and are under thrust until they intercept the target, missiles have limited fuel supply and might not be.
>>62891694did the dropship talk really bred out another garbage space weaponry thread?
The way I understand it.Missile>much faster than a ship>much lower delta-v>much cheaper/simpler engine and warhead >very spammable but relatively short range (aka thousands of km)Torpedo>slightly faster than a ship>comparable delta-v to a ship>more expensive/complex construction>not spammable but can chase enemies from light seconds away
Are torpedoes basically obsolete IRL?I feel like the torpedo's whole "thing" ended the day the Exocet was invented
>>62891780Ask the black sea fleetTorpedoes work, ASMs do not.
A space missile is any projectile large enough to carry a payload, i.e not a little bullet. Technically a space torpedo is a subclass of missile that is able to alter its course once fired, but they're typically only called "torpedo" if they're relatively large.
>>62891796I dont think that counts, torbedos were used because ASMs that would work didnt work with ukie launch platforms. But the ASMs they used against the Mockva or whatever that burning hulk was worked pretty well.
>>62891780A missile is faster, longer ranged and more accurate, but a torpedo is harder to detect and/or defend against and is also much more likely to cause catastrophic damage. 250kg of explosives on your deck is a sweaty day, but 250kg of explosives under your keel is a briny night.
>>62891811The Neptune strikes have been kino but they would not have been as effective against ships with little things like fire extinguishers, functioning radar, and a trained crew. Back in the 80s the arabs deployed a lot of exocets against oil tankers and they did fuckall.
>>62891694Whether the IP they're in is taking more inspiration from Aerial combat or Oceanic combat. They're only thinking about what space combat without handavium level tech might actually look like if the missiles are travelling through multiple light minutes of space (after an initial burn from their own engines, push from a launcher/gun, disposable first stage engine, or drone carrier) without thrust before finally engaging the target weeks after they were initially fired.
>>62891780Torpedoes are still a very viable weapon system, albeit not as much as AShMs. For one you can't exactly expect an Exocet to hit an enemy submarine, but also most countermeasures protecting against AShMs aren't useful against torpedoes.
>>62891694Size-1 through Size-4 are missiles. Size-5 through Size-10 are torpedoes.
>>62891709>>62891757So basically chemical rockets vs electric propulsion for near-future considerations.
>>62892162I mean, I reckon if you're actually doing space combat, you've far exceeded our current pitiful spacecraft technology and have probably moved onto nuclear pulse propulsion, or fission rockets at the bare minimum. Chemical rockets don't get you anywhere beyond orbit, and electric propulsion is pathetically slow. Releasing your ion-drive torpedo, and watching it accelerate at a (no hyperbole) snails pace would be goofy as hell.
>>62891694Mostly size. Torpedoes are big, just like actual torpedoes, and are designed to punch through point defense by virtue of being too tough to kill. On the flip side, smaller and faster ships can often evade them.Missiles are faster but are more vulnerable to PD. They can catch smaller ships and overwhelm their limited point defense with raw numbers but can't handle a bigger ship with more comprehensive point defense.
>>62891694Come to time about it, shouldn't all be called Torpedoes, since Spaceships are basically Submarines.
>>62892187I think it's mostly less of a question of technology, and more of a question of scale and economics.
>>62892162Multi-stage. There's a new class of rocket propellants called ESP (electric solid propellant) just now hitting the market. It's basically a solid fuel that doesn't need oxidizer, you just expose it to electrical charge and it burns until you cut the juice.
>>62892321I'm pretty sure that would be some kind of monopropellant that has a baked-in oxidizer, like gunpowder. Pretty sure you're still constrained by the low specific impulse you get from a chemical reaction - or the low total thrust you get from an electrical reaction. Not to mention the low fuel density of most chemical rockets, necessitating weighty and bulky fuel tanks. Maybe some kind of monopropellant rocket using an electrical thingamajig instead of a catalyst manifold could become a high-performance maneuvering thruster though.
>>62892273Spaceships aren't submerging in anything
>>62891694The difference is that the missile knows where it is.The torpedo on the other hand, does not know where it is, only that it must kill.
>>62891694There is no meaningful difference between a space missile and a space torpedo. Some TTTBS games say that torpedoes travel slower than ships or around the same speed but that's dumb and not how space travel works.There is no meaningful difference between space carriers and space fighters either, except that the fighter will always have less volume to cram in fuel meaning it will have less dV to work with.Missile is a generic word for any object moving through space either ballistic or under its own power. What we call missiles today are guided to target but a bullet in flight is technically a missile.
>>62892273>Spaceships are basically Submarines.Submarines still essentially engage other submarines on a 2D planeSpaceships are aeroplanes because every direction must be taken into account
>>62892273Space ships are basically the anti-submarine. They can see everything and be seen by everything and can't stop moving or they'll fall.
>>62892990dunning-kruger-maxxed on all three subjects.impressive. I don't think I've ever seen anyone as wrong as you before. quite an accomplishment if I may say so.
>>62891694compare ballistic missiles to cruise missiles. The former gets there fast but after a certain point becomes an unguided munition due to fuel expenditure, the latter takes its time, can dodge long-range point defense, but can still go full throttle and close once within range.You use missiles when you've both expended your torpedoes in the stand-off phase, and when the missiles run dry and you're both hurtling towards each other, you bust out the kinetics/pulse lasers AKA blasters.
>>62893027Objections with no substance are to be dismissed out of hand
>>62893098is that what they're teaching in Moscow these days?
>>62893125It's just craven for someone to call something wrong without stating why, really not worth engaging with seriously
>>62893027He's got the wrong reasons but it's certainly more accurate than calling a sub a spaceship.
>>62891694Technically nothing. Colloquially a space torpedo is just a big, long-range missile. Given their mass a space torpedo would naturally be less agile than a smaller missile so it makes sense that they'd only be useful against large slow ships and stationary infrastructure, just like naval torps. >>62892140kek I see what you did there
torpedeo = engine is always running (even if it can be throttled)missile = powered by a booster or boostersrocket = powered by a booster or boosters (can be throttled)a modern day air breathing cruise missile like tomahawk is actually an air torpedo
>>62891709>torpedoes have nearly unlimited fuel and are under thrust until they intercept>>62891757>missiles are fasterDoes not compute.
>>62891694Torpedos tend to be larger, less maneuverable, and far more powerful. In the expanse their torpedos were nuclear. Torpedos are for capital ships, missiles are for freighters.
>>62891694Torpedos are much bigger and slower than missiles and have a short range but do a lot more damage. They're great against capital ships. Missiles are great against small fast maneuverable fighters.
>>62891780how many AA batteries you have protecting the keel of the ship?
>>62891694In Star Wars, torpedoes are powerful but not maneuverable while missiles are less powerful but can home in on a target. In Trek, torpedoes are highly powerful but relativistic slower weapons (vs direct fire phasers/disruptors). In many other scifi, torpedoes are weapons that have no internal engines and are only externally accelerated at launch vs missiles that do have their own propulsion.
>>62895180>not maneuverablethe first torpedoes we see in star wars make a perfect 90-degree turn in a couple of inches to take out the death star
Capital ship missiles, one of the two subtypes of torpedoes, also get a bonus of double damage vs. targets that have no remaining shields. (Jihad, Juggernaut, Doomsday, and Armageddon are capital ships missiles). These missiles also have lower inherent accuracy, so they need computers to help them hit targets and don't deal with high enemy jamming as well as standard torpedoes. Capital ship missiles give the most effective combat power per weapon vs. enemies with little or no jamming when backed by sufficient computing power. They also cost tons of Ironium, limiting their numbers.
>>62893592>>missiles are faster>Does not compute.I usually assume in these discussions we're generally talking with people who have a half-remembered freshmen highschool level of physics who mush terms around. In this case by "faster" they probably mean "higher thrust", ie, more acceleration, but with much lower overall delta-v. So a torpedo can end up going much "faster" in terms of absolute velocity differential, but it cruises up to that over a much longer time then a missile.That said, I think this entire discussion is just making shit up because there isn't any actual consistent difference I can remember in across a range of scifi. There are slow acceleration but very long running nuclear powered planet buster "missiles", there are "torpedos" that are super quick. I think it's just pure rule of cool and whatever the writer thinks sounds neat.IRL torpedos are used for stuff that goes under water and missiles for everything else from they tiniest quick stuff to sub-sonic cruise to hypersonic ludicrously high accel ones like Sprint. There is no sensible line in space.
