I'm working on a sci-fi universe and I want to know which spaceplane concept would be the most practical among all concepts and implementations for fighters, bombers, transports, reconnaissance, helicopters, and other military or fleet aircraft across Army, Navy, and Air Force roles. I am open to including the rule of cool as a factor in the decision
When it comes to Space Carriers, I am not sure why they are a thing, at least as they are usually depicted. It seems like they exist to draw parallels to sea navies but ships and fighters in sea navies move through different mediums. The Carrier floating on the ocean is limited to a 2D plain and a speed of about 30 knots while the Fighter flying through the sky can move in all directions at 400+ knots. In space the carrier and ship move through the same medium, there is no reason why the carrier is slower or less maneuverable than the fighter. So wouldn't it be less of a ship and fighter dynamic and more the space equivalent of a big boat dropping smaller boats into the water err vacuum. Also how does a space fighter work if you need equal force to turn around, acceleration at those speeds should take a long time to slow down. Wouldn't the big ships be way faster too since they have bigger engines? Genuinely don't know much about real space physics so I'm actually asking.
>>64971918from scifi or the real world? for scifi, alot of people liked the starfury design from babylon 5. for a long time it felt like the most realistic space fighter concept, as it was very flexible in how you could move it. it looked like something we could make today if we wanted. there was also an atmospheric version of it in the series.for the real world its obviously gotta be x-37b
>>64971918Any fighter craft will be rule of cool, at best you'd have a missile that can fight over missiles.Going off that The Night's Dawn Trilogy have combat wasps that are cool. And as >>64972003 said the Starfury is a fan favourite. Any space craft won't need to factor in aerodynamics, so if you want "plane" spaceplanes I would make them dual use atmospheric craft.
>>64971918Spaceplanes aren't practical so I don't know how to help. If you could relate your universe to something that would help
>>64972003>random ass wings for no reasonPass.
>>64971918>>64971966>>64972078these anons are right OP, there's no such thing as a practical space fighter. And if you're using it in space then aerodynamic surfaces are just deadweight. Even for space launch spaceplanes are questionable at best.Embrace hard SF. Don't make yet another space fantasy slop universe.
>>64972003But you need both atmosphere engine for a space plane and your rocket.Shuttle is a flying brick.
>>64972389If it's a transport air breathing engines can work
>>64972003>>64972003Yours is a bit more practical than this but how does that enter atmosphere?
>>64971966A bigger ship can mount more efficient, lower thrust engines and carry shittons of dV to haul smaller, lower endurance vessels around the solar system. It would function as less of a carrier and more of a submarine tender / space tug hybrid though. You could even cheap out on long term life support on the smaller ships and just put a huge spingravity ring on the "carrier" for the crews to live on outside of combat
>>64972130>randomThat would be true if the thrusters on the end of the "wing" didn't exist.
>>64972428there's an atmospheric version of the starfury called the thunderfury, and it might be plausible for low gravity worlds, but something like earth might be off limits without some major breakthroughs in science.real spacecraft require a huge amount of energy to escape a planet's gravitational pull, so what you'd be asking for is a single stage to orbit SSTO vehicle. something like that irl can work on lower gravity worlds like the moon and mars, e.g. spacex starship. the closest we've come to doing the same on earth irl would be the x-33 / venturestar.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VentureStaras for realistic ones from scifi, i cant think of any examples.
>>64971918If you're looking for 'sci-fi space fighters' then you've already locked in to a vibe, rather than anything vaguely realistic. There's no reasonable use case for space fighters, other than creating dramatic scenes for a fun story. Given that, go for something like pic related, put on the Cowboy Bebop OST, and have fun.
>>64971918>space>helicopters
>>64973342Wasn't NASA's Ingenuity probe to Mars a 'space helicopter'?
>>64973342>he doesn't know
>>64973560mars has an atmosphere, as thin as it is, it's not rotoring in space.>>64971918Just assume some planet with lower gravity and yet a thick atmosphere, like Titan. Strapping some feathers to a human would make a viable aircraft.
>>64973186Saber
>>64974469Skylon.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SABRE_(rocket_engine)
>>64974469Saber is the engine, while Saber came from Lance.Lance itself was a contender for moon program
>>64974574You mean that lancer was developed into saber as it says on wiik that lancer is still a viable option
>>64972713>less of a carrier and more of a submarine tender / space tug hybrid thoughWhat's the difference?
>>64971966>When it comes to Space Carriers, I am not sure why they are a thing, at least as they are usually depicted. Mainly because everyone keeps trying to recreate WW2 in space when in reality space combat with our current understanding of the laws of physics and technology would resemble far more something akin to WW1 naval combat in space.
>>64971966Space Carriers are just a mobile base. In space stealth/mobility is king. by the time we get to space combat, our targeting and firepower will already be high enough to insta-kill anything that is caught on sight. so you want to fight mainly using small ships (preferably unmanned drones but that depends on how you do AI in your sci-fi universe). Small size limits fuel capacity and acceleration (smaller thrusters), as well as less protection, so a Space Carrier would be used to bring these small crafts to the edge of the battlefield. The carrier will then stay back and act as support for refueling\rearming and coordination (information transfer back to home base might be too slow if light years away so you'd want a nearby command center). if the battle takes too long, and the small ships are manned, the pilots would need a place to rest and socialize (psychological needs, though you could theoretically rest in your own small ship and socialize via VR).you could also bullshit a reason for them to exist like "FTL requires huge engines that only a space carrier can have" which means you'd HAVE to use a carrier to deploy your troops.as a sidenote, how space wars are conducted would depend on the goal of the war. is it annihilation or domination? if it is only annihilation, then you can send a few small but expensive long-travelling drones to your enemy's base to nuke them. but if your goal is domination you'd probably need a carrier. it pretty much mirrors current irl battle doctrine, so you should look at the Iran war for inspiration.
>>64975249If you plan to leave your solar system and occupy another then you need everything a navy and airforce and army has.Also why hasn't anyone mentioned f302?
F302https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_99kmwnZ3cU
>>64975353It has aerospike jet engines and rocket booster
>>64975150>would resemble far more something akin to WW1 naval combat in space.How so?
>>64975945Quite a lot of factors at play here and a lot of it is based on assumption of distances void combat is going to take place at.Primary thing is as a lot of people have pointed out is that space planes would be far too fucking small to have any meaningful payload or range while have zero maneuverability or speed advantage over larger ships because bigger = better here especially when you're talking distances of hundreds of thousands of km's as part of your average engagement potentially. Smallest thing you are likely going to see is probably the equivalent to a WW1 torpedo boat likely built as "stealth" ships meant to sneak close to an enemy, deliver their payload and GTFO.Speaking of torpedoes there are people who have this absurd notion that missiles would function just as they do in atmosphere and have this hyper maneuverability in space while being super long range. I have yet to find anyone who can argue just how a missile will be able to carry enough fuel to make constant course corrections for both accelerating and decelerating against a target going at equally high speed that's performing evasive action while also carrying a payload that is going to do more than scratch the paintwork if it does miraculously hit. Only way such weapon retain some effectiveness is essentially as a knife fighting range weapon system. Which leaves projectile weapons really as the go to offensive weapon since Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son of a bitch in space any projectile fired is not going to stop till it ruins someones day. As a result you're going to see more likely a dreadnought race equivalent since bigger ships = more space for bigger guns and better armor. So with everyone going down a battleship route space battles against fleets of ships will be less Battle of Coral Sea and more Battle of Jutland unless of course there is a sudden massive technological change that redefines the rules.
oh no, it's retarted
>>64975249>stealthNo such thing in space.
>>64971966>Wouldn't the big ships be way faster too since they have bigger engines? Accelleration is a function of engine thrust vs ship mass. Plus there's delta-v to keep in mind if you want your spacecraft to have decent endurance, and larger long-endurance vessels would also need to allocate more space and tonnage to crew facilities.
>>64975353The F302 shrinks down like a cold day in the locker room in comparison to the raw potency of the Lantean Gate Ship. The 302 can't even time travel, what a fucking Noob!
>>64976568forgot the pic
>>64976568>>64976583>The F302 shrinks down like a cold day in the locker room in comparison to the raw potency of the Lantean Gate ShipIt is kind of a statement about how their tech is so advanced that they casually fit a battleship's firepower and some of its function in a spacecraft that could be piloted by a soccer mum and looks like it's owned by one too.There's a real:>virgin spooky bodysnatching wraith dart>chad soccer mom suburban minivan puddle jumper
>>64976271>projectile weapons really as the go to offensive weaponWouldn't any unguided gun-launched weapon be inferior to any guided gun-launched weapon with even just a tiny delta-v budget?
>>64971918I am an expert at ksp and the answer is: SSTOs are cock and ball torture, so slap on 6 gorillion drop tanks. Air breathing engines are used to get as much horizontal velocity as you can, and then rocket engines carry the craft to space. Jet engines are useless dead weight in space so spaceplanes that never go in atmosphere should not have them. All spaceplanes should have high efficiency nuclear engines, because spaceplanes have more dry mass, they carry less fuel than rockets, and thus need more effecient engines. I like the orion "engine"
>>64978314It's been done well, just cancel.
>>64978932SSTO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-stage-to-orbit
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-105Soviet did build a SSTO spaceplane although it required a super sonic jet to get up to height before launch like shuttle.
>>64971918>spaceplane concept would be the most practical among all concepts>rules of coolWe need to know your technology, fictional or realistic, and a bit of your world building.If every spaceship move with bullshit antigrav technology, maybe "aerodynamic flight" is only used because it cannot be detected with grav-detector thingy.If you want the "realism grail", oh boy, I've got bad and good news.The bad news is that you can forget every single WWII or Cold war in space you were brainwashed to believe apply.Consider that NONE OF THEM ARE LOGICAL, unless your setting accidentally replicate it visually by other means.Even space-warship at all do not make sense as they would more likely only be missile-tug and when I say tug I don't mean missile-warship, no, no, no. I really mean a TUG whose only job is to serve as a reusable first stage (SpaceX style) to push missiles swarms without ever facing attack.The other bad news is that space debris will easily annihilate everyone's orbital infrastructure so no one will be inclined to fight.So where is the good news?Once you accept that everyone is scared shitless of starting a genocidal war, it open the door for "ridiculously costly methods to solve any small conflict with precision"So if space miners somehow declare independence, you won't be flinging nukes that will reset 100yrs of space infrastructure.You might be launching very small highly maneuverable spacecraft capable of defending against improvised weapon, supporting the Space-boarder taking over the colony critical systems, manned because everyone can hack anything.If you need the "cool aerodynamic fighter", either you justify a sleek wing-like frame for practical need, or you have reasons to fly inside large pressurized area, like colony domes made gigantic because built on low-gravity moon.You might even have mecha because wheels & tracks have poor grip on low gravity terrain and industrial mecha is a mass-produced tech.
Fantasy sci-fi? Look into WW1 dogfights and figure out to make them cool and spacey. I personally have a weakness for the fact that, unlike planes, space stuff can "fly backwards" and that's something I believe I've seen only once or twice in media.Realistic sci-fi? Distance too big but you could try forcing it with human guided projectiles, although that has quite the requirement list:>target is big and predictable>target is close>target is vulnerable to kinetic strikes>target is unable to reliably intercept fragile and relatively bulky kinetic projectiles>something forces the usage of a human guidance computer instead of diy circuit boardBasically unless you are flying boing's starliner on a one way trip to the ISS I wouldn't bother so my vote goes to fantasy.
>>64980029>>64980118I feel like a certain degree of realism, enough to fool most people, is the most fun option. going too further into the fantasy scifi route usually ends up boring because you can hand-wave any limit. the alternative is to make up some new particle and use it to explain every rule-of-cool concept you want. like in LOGH they introduced the Zephyr particle as some kind of highly explosive gas(?) that spreads really fast and can't be neutralized or cleaned out easily, to explain why boarding missions often require melee combat (if zephyr particles are deployed in a closed space like a spaceship, you can't use guns or you'll kill everyone on the ship, so melee weapons are the only option left).
Fixed your "sci-fi" issues.
>>64975249>bullshit a reason for them to existdepends on the settingif you're hewing close to real life physics and don't go too far out of the current state of the tech tree, well, you may need a carrier with fuckass huge mass drivers powered by xboxhueg nuclear fission or fusion reactors to launch fighters into harm's way at ludicrous speedsthe fighters would still carry their own fuel for maneuvers and tactical combat, but most of their dV would be leftover from launcha typical mission might be to get shot at a planet or moon from way out in the boonies, fall silently towards it in strict EMCON with your chilled carbon-carbon-ice stealth umbrella deployed, wreck some orbital defenses on the way in, then do an Oberth maneuver burning up most of your leftover fuel so you can do another once you get back to the system's star to get back out to where your carrier will be next week, floating stealthily among leftover trash from when the solar system was formed. You'd probably be jinking to dodge beam and missile fire from the moment you open fire to when you make it out of range of the defenders though.
Do you strictly need to go into space/orbit?Close air support in a gentle 0.13g can get interesting
>>64975121A submarine tender carries spare fuel, ammo and supplies so that non-nuke submarines can minmax their volume for combat more than endurance. A tug physically drags other ships around. A space "carrier" would do both. Technically aircraft carriers perform the same role for their jets, but we don't usually describe it in naval terms
>>64975249>In space stealth/mobility is kingNo such thing as stealth in space unless you're willing to go down toughSF's route of hydrogen steamers Mobility is difficult in space and it's almost impossible to burn hard enough for tactical surprises, and completely impossible for operational onesSpacelet opinion DISCARDED
>>64982456>hydrogen steamerswait, what?
>>64982456>No such thing as stealth in spaceOf course there is.You control your emissions, run dark and with a low-albedo hull.The only way to find you is to ping it with something and that's an emission so now the one searching is lit up and targetable by long-range torps or whatever.
>>64982498Probably referring to cracking water and using hydrogen gas to tea-kettle.
>>64982503they're gonna have to raise a hell of a lot of steam to try and disguise the giant heat signature powering multiple combat-strength lasers and sensors and whatnotI think decoys are the only real way to achieve some degree of "stealth" in space, or rather create targeting confusion rather than true "stealth"
>>64982509well, you're wrongwhat's stopping anyone with even a bit of space mining tech from covering a ship with chondrite and turning off everything except minimal life support?>oh look, another nondescript snowball is falling in from the Oort, activate all orbital defenses and put the fleet on combat alert said no admiral ever
>>64982518how often do snowballs fall from the Oort?in any well-developed space economy, planetary defences should be tracking them in any casewe are nowhere near that level and we are already tracking around half the large-ish (ship-sized) objects around Earth
>>64982531comets and asteroids zip around all over the place and nobody pays no mindremember 3i/Atlas?I don't subscribe to Avi Loeb's views but... if it WAS a hostile ship, we would have had no way of telling
>>64982536>comets and asteroids zip around all over the place and nobody pays no mindyeah cause like I said: we only track about half of themNEO tracking is underfunded because it's not exactly top fucking priority compared to tracking Shasneeds, but in a space war setting it would be>remember 3i/Atlashas it passed yet? I can't rememberI take it that since I'm alive and nobody's screaming about New York being wiped out, picrel, it's fine>I don't subscribe to Avi Loeb's viewsoh? what'd he say?>but... if it WAS a hostile ship, we would have had no way of tellingin a space war situation we would've investigated it to ensure it wasn't a hostile warship
>>64982555>NEOis not the issuethe issue is the vast, sparse swarms of trash on the outer edge, cool, dark and gravitationally turbulent>has it passed yet?yes. no apocalypse>what'd he say?doomerisms>in a space war situation we would've investigated it to ensure it wasn't a hostile warshipand if it was it would have just started blasting, yescan you afford to investigate every rock? probably not? what if some wily individual replaces part of the mass of an existing infalling rock with warship when you're not looking?
>>64982563>the issue is the vast, sparse swarms of trash on the outer edge, cool, dark and gravitationally turbulentin a tough SF setting, it will take some time for a threat from there to hurt a planetany threat that can hurt a planet from there is likely to be detectable by equivalent technology>what if some wily individual replaces part of the mass of an existing infalling rock with warship when you're not looking?probably wouldn't be able to do it in timethe real problem is if we are the space equivalent of Iran, using space equivalent of chinesium space telescopes, and we're being menaced by space burgers who can do these things without us noticing because they have superior techI'm interested in this discussion because I've actually considered this scenario and these are my conclusions, whaddya think?
>>64982597>any threat that can hurt a planet from there is likely to be detectable by equivalent technologywhy would you assume that?>probably wouldn't be able to do it in timebecause what? seriously, where is the difficulty here? you pick a likely comet, glom on to it when it's way the fuck out there, fall in to where you need to be. stealthy as fuck and the closer you get the stealthier you are because the comet is gonna start offgassing and spewing dust and the gases and dust will be further heated by the sun and there ain't no sensor good enough to see through all that>whaddya think?I think you haven't thought it through carefully at alla peer adversary could do this to Earth today if they felt like it, assuming they somehow could get here or were here all alongstealth in space is not impossible, it is EASY
>>64982604>why would you assume that?underlying principle of historical military development: our ability to sneak objects past the enemy has usually developed commensurately, or triggered eventually matching developments, with our ability to identify and intercept said objectshence,>you pick a likely comet, glom on to it when it's way the fuck out thereif tech has developed enough that we are able to go way out there and find a suitable object, we should have developed sky-scanning capabilities enough to defend against just such a gambit>the comet is gonna start offgassing and spewing dust and the gases and dust will be further heated by the sun and there ain't no sensor good enough to see through all thatI dunno, wouldn't any military capability powerful enough to worry the planet also be hotter than all that?other than recon of courseand if it's a missile aimed at, say, destroying planetary defence satellites, after detaching from its camouflage, it would take some time to get up to a speed that could penetrate defences, if this was in a space war setting where spaceships can reach the Oort, the threat of long-range missile attack would be considerable and robust planetary defence systems would be de rigueur
>>64982696>underlying principlecopes and prayers in other words>we should havewe didn't>wouldn't any military capability powerful enough to worry the planet also be hotter than all that?let me introduce you to this wonder of technology called an ON/OFF button... it turns things off and on again at will!>if it's a missile why would it be a missile? we're talking targeted destruction of military assets here, beam/particle weaponsif someone wants to kill Earth they can just lob rocks at it from afar
Are you fighting in orbit? Do you need to enter an atmosphere or launch from it? Are you fighting in interplanetary distances, or between solar systems or even more? Are you fighting against other space navies or bombing planets and moons? All of these types of military craft would be wildly different, but all would fall under "space plane"
>>64982501>You control your emissions, run dark and with a low-albedo hull.Any burn you make will be visible from anywhere in the solar system if you want to get anywhere important in less than a decade. After that I can just extrapolate your trajectory from your acceleration and estimated energy of the exhaust and update it whenever you make a correction burn. There's no such thing as stealth in space
>>64982498It's when you make a ship that's black in every part of the emissions spectrum by encasing it in a massive tank of liquid helium/hydrogen and move it around by releasing off-gassing pressure from the tank. Theoretically it's very hard if not impossible to detect, but has a limited lifespan (only as long as the liquid hydrogen stays cool) and too sluggish to actually make interplanetary burns
>>64982942thanks a lot, I've flipped through toughSF but somehow missed that
>>64982360What you are describing is basic verisimilitude and it's surprisingly completely separate from realism.A realistic show can be unbelievable because of a plot so ridiculous it's like it's based on today's politic, or because it has no consistency of themes.Whereas a fictional work can be immersive even with on the spot magic, simply because the themes flow perfectly from start to finish.>LOGHI know it's name called as the realistic space battle, but it was honestly just allegorical infantry-line in space, all the way to space-river fording.You should avoid that example at all cost.
>>64982509>>64982518>inevitable attempt at stealthIt doesn't work and you should already know the atomicrocket link explaining you why in great detail.>decoyThe only way to decoy is with an object the same size, mass & thermal energy.CURRENT MISSILES are already smart enough to ignore flare based on memorized trajectories or plain impossible movement, and they are made for much smaller target in a much hotter and difficult environment.The only thing that could actually split of with decoy are final approach projectiles with some kind of wire connected-bola design so they can tweak their trajectory, make themselves harder to hit or decide when to change direction without propulsion.We are unlikely to even get "warship".>>64982536>comets and asteroids zip around all over the place and nobody pays no mindFirst, we track every debris down to the centimeter where there are satellites.Second, we never had a need for Traffic Control beyond the moon.Third, If we get the capability to build 10,000 tons warship, let alone reach the Oort cloud, you can build enough satellite to track any number of ship and their paint flaking off.And YES you will not go cheap on that because a single nuclear spaceship accident can destroy the entire space infrastructure.That alone is argument to say there will not be any "private spaceship" only AI-ships that occasionally take request from meatbag.>Hydrogen steamerJust as this anon say >>64982942 the steamer is a desperate attempt only imagined against old radar technologies. Given how we can't hide today's submarine construction, good luck even building one secretly.You can't even launch it from a bigger spaceship because the sudden difference of mass and energy would be detected by civilian traffic control looking for sign of a spaceship losing parts.The technology used for a steamer would be better used to make first strike unmanned missiles.
>>64983416okay, so what do you think space warships would be armed with, and how would they fight?assume no relativistic kill weapons
>>64982597>asymmetrical environmentComplex politic with very low intensity, small if sophisticated battles is the only way you are going to have space battle, so no one feel the need to regulate everyone's breath and reprogram anyone wrongthinking against it.The only thing one can hide is your intent, accounting for irrationality like say the silly plot idea of a space-president who would be in prison if he didn't win a broken two-party election, suddenly deciding to deploy ridiculous effort to cleanly kidnap a space-colony leader just to get obedience from the rest (and then drunk with power humiliate itself).>space equivalent of IranThe problem is that the closest equivalent of a space-shaheed drone would be able to cause incredible damage to any fragile pressurized environment, even imagining a world where regulation took care of planning for any such option.Speaking of asymmetrical, the anime Starship Operator do this. The war is between two very minor faction while the real superpower only act indirectly. The ending is very realistic on the matter btw. I'd spoiler it but /k/ don't have that.
>>64983597>the anime Starship Operatorinteresting, thanks, I'll look it up
>>64983581INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER.Seriously, politics can change everything.Big difference between a united system that only have space-cop fight freetizen entitled to private omnifactories.or a Earth-Moon setting with strict space-laws to keep recognized minimal-size factions from triggering the apocalypse.It might be better to work the other way around.What kind of combat do you want? Then you build a setting that allow it.Just be aware that trying to have them all, even as niche, usually result in unintended consequences ruining everything.>Space boarding & space fightersMany huge colonies and stations with required local authorities who can rule how they want so long as they don't make a mess.Because everything is fragile, fighting is done only with the smallest means. Cargo-traffic is all AI and small-fast fighters are easy way to reach one, hack its AI and ask for ransom cheaper than sending merch to kill you.Since AIs are flickery, manned craft are preferred.>Super giant warship fleet battleFew hyperpower exist, their economy is widespread and redundant, it's difficult to endanger them. They live in such opulence they only disagree politically.Both side avoids any genocidal/scary battle that would have their populations revolt. Opting instead for large showy operations their AIs think will sway public opinions and impede ever so slightly the enemy economy.Since spaceship are impossible to armor or hide in any way, they have incredible redundancy, constantly moving their parts around, far apart from each other.Because mass would prevent them from having any range, they are also 95% empty, covering themselves with stretched thermal fabrics.Inside they can hide the equipments to take over their enemies vast installations. Typically robots to fight other robots.Humans are only kept around for decisions taking and for the spectacle.
>>64983416I have zero respect for atomiccrockofshit or whatever it's called, or for your lack of imaginationif you want a chilled, radar absorbent umbrella you can have that for very cheap, make it in any factory that can deal with carbon compositesion drives are not very visible at all either>sudden difference of mass and energy would be detected by civilian traffic control if you're going to try to contradict me by talking about tech that doesn't exist, we can stop right here
>>64982501>You control your emissions, run dark and get cooked alive by your own waste heatFTFY.
>>64984042you dump your waste heat (which mostly comes from meatbags and the systems needed to keep them alive) into a thermal mass, probably your superchilled propellantjust another operational constraint, definitely not a showstopper
>>64984026>muh imaginationStupid shit that fails because physics do not work that way is something nobody with a working brain has any respect for.>if you want a chilled, radar absorbent umbrella you can have that for very cheapPossible. Also completely useless and owuld not make you actually stealthy in space.>ion drives are not very visible at all eitherYeha, you can "only" spot them from halfway across the solar system. Retard.>means to detect mass and energy do not existI'd make a comment about your lack of imagination, but this is just you displaying a plain lack of knowledge, or a working brain.
>>64984044>you dump your waste heat and are now plainly visible from across the solar systemFTFY>(which most comes from onboard power generatiuon system, propulsion systems and electronics, with crew and life support being an afterthought)FTFY>into a thermal mass that is quickly saturated, melts down and destroys your craft from inside-outFTFY>probably your superchilled propellant, which is superchilled becuase otherwise it quickly becomes an acute explosion and fire hazard that will doom your craftFTFY>a catastrophic operational constraint, definitely a total showstopper and nigh-guaranteed suicide if attemptedFTFY
>>64984069>>64984053This anon knows what's up>>64984044>>64984026>>64982501This anon is completely retarded and a disgrace to all hard sci-fi fans
>>64984053>you can "only" spot them from halfway across the solar systemyou can? how?don't point at JWST either, nigger, that shit is useless for search>completely uselessbecause you say so?>means to detect mass do not existindeed they do not. certainly not at these small scales we're talking aboutLIGO can barely see gravity waves from black hole collisions, some of the most massy and gravitationally loud happenings in the universe>>64984069your waste heat is just what a few monkeys produce, normallyif you have to an engine burn you dump it in the exhaust stream like a normal person
>>64983416And what if I just don't get spotted? My emmissions are heading into deep space away from your wizard's crystal ball, so he can't see me until we're in visual range. My ship is designed to absorb heat and emit it in areas safely away from the crew and your magic eye. What now?Or what if your sensors aren't perfect? What if they have a buffer-time that my ship exploits. Maybe my ship's signature looks like a distant galaxy, and your defenses dismiss my ship as background noise. Maybe there's a little sweet spot my spies told me about, a small blind-spot in your system that my ship can weave through like a needle through silk and by the time you realize I'm there, my missiles are already impacting. Maybe my ship looks like a little cargo hauler, and my weapons are hidden away. How many merchant ships are you willing to fry?>>64984127Get bent, samefag.
>>64983755>Big difference between a united system that only have space-cop fight freetizen entitled to private omnifactories.>or a Earth-Moon setting with strict space-laws to keep recognized minimal-size factionsfunny you should say thatI'm trying to do a "freetizens with private factories" setting indeedbut in context of an intergalactic war between five or six factionsbut I've got the geopolitical angle largely sorted, I'm trying to figure out how tough I want my SF, and in what areasI was contemplating super-chemical-rockets in a non-FTL setting but now I have bitten the bullet and decided on limited FTL through unobtainium-235, but more practical warship design everywhere elseI've decided that the type of combat I want is single large battleships rather than swarms of fightersnow I'm kind of stuck at lasers or missiles or some combination thereof
>>64982390A flying almost wing like shape?
>>64984368>My emmissions are heading into deep space away from your wizard's crystal ball, so he can't see me until we're in visual range. My ship is designed to absorb heat and emit it in areas safely away from the crew and your magic eye. What now?Try quoting some actual numbers instead of making shit up
>>64984151>don't point at JWSTon its own it has a limited field of view, and it's designed for deeper space astronomy, but 3 or 4 of those will be able to give us a good infrared view of the intrasystem surroundings>your waste heat is just what a few monkeys produce, normallyyeah but you'll only be coasting on minimum life supportand that's still really fucking bright compared to everything else in space>if you have to an engine burn you dump it in the exhaust streamthis is only relevant to combat in which everything lights off
>>64983344>verisimilitudethat's the first time I hear of this term, but it really is a pretty good description of what I was trying to say. Though I will add that I don't think that themes on their own are enough, there still needs to be a logical flow as well. In other words, any change that you make to reality needs to be logically consistent with the rest of the story and repeatable, and this requires the introduction of axioms for how things work in your setting (not necessarily explicitly stated the reader, but the author has to define them for themselves).as for the LOGH example, that show is definitely not "realistic". I specifically used the zephyr particle as the sole example from that show. the space fights aren't particularly logical, but the boarding in LOGH is pretty well defined and it's impressive that they managed to make up a somewhat realistic-sounding argument for knight charges in space. its the exact kind of effort that is needed to mix rule-of-cool with realism (or, apparently, verisimilitude).
>>64985614>verisimilitude>that's the first time I hear of this term, but it really is a pretty good description of what I was trying to sayindeed,>realism enough to fool most peopleis a pretty good quick-and-dirty definition of the word
>>64976779TBF, if you've got mass producible 'basically infinite' reactors like the ZPM then you have absolutely no excuse for not immediately curbstomping anybody who tries to start a fight with you. Even if the Lanteans 'weren't aggressive/fighters' they were certainly excellent engineers, and should have been able to figure out 'big enough boom' as a viable problem solving strategy for the Wraiths.
>>64984026FYI, I'm the anon you quoted and your post is so ignorant I don't even consider it honest.Stop wasting your life trolling.>>64984069Those are nice fix.>>64984368>And what if I just don't get spotted?Then nothing with the tech level to be a threat is even looking at you.Nice bait tho, almost felt like you believe any of your shit.
>>64984966>but in context of an intergalactic war between five or six factionsOh boy...>I was contemplating super-chemical-rockets in a non-FTL setting but now I have bitten the bullet and decided on limited FTL through unobtainium-235, but more practical warship design everywhere elseTo be honest, you bit more than one bullet the moment you wanted intergalactic war. And I dare hope you didn't meant alien or you'll face "ape or angel" problems (fermi paradox stuff).Tell me what's your FTL framework, because it's the feature most likely to result in someone building "paperclip factories" but actually building in an unknown system self-replicating planet-killing missiles that all teleport "in range" after picking up relativistic speed.FTL tropes can define by itself the existence/size of warship, whether fleets are possible, serve as a method of stealth/dodge, or accidentally annihilate your setting because you wanted the wrong trope.>I've decided that the type of combat I want is single large battleships rather than swarms of fighters>now I'm kind of stuck at lasers or missiles or some combination thereof[Multivac answer] I don't have enough to give you idea matching what you want.Since you said "single" I'd argue you need to be able to address multiple sort of threat anyway.So you don't waste a 1 bazillion meme-coin missiles to intercept a stolen space-pod near space-Somalia (unregulated freetizen setting).Missiles typically rule against anything slower that can be swarmed. In a vacuum projectile can split a lot and at orbital speed you don't need explosives to go through any amount of armor (unless your FTL is about teleporting fortress, maybe).And spaceship are incredibly cost-effective target for missiles, while also unable to carry a lot on their own.Laser are weak, but very cheap and practical.Slug-launcher can also have room as the cheapest way to inflict piercing damage.But again, FTL can make the above irrelevant.
>>64985614No disagreeing that realism will naturally have higher verisimilitude.But I insist you can ruin even the most "logical" setting by overdefining it to the point of backing yourself into a corner, blocking the unexpected plot twist you needed.Pseudo-realism is still a better goal better than failing at speculative-realism.I guess I'm just snubbing LOGH because I believe I know better.That show was, fundamentally, meant to evoke the appearance of napoleonic firing line in space. I was not much about realism.LOGH "zephyr" solution is kind of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) and SHOULDN'T increase the risk of loosing your own station by accident, or give a loosing enemy a way to take you with him.If I have to justify space boarder, I make everyone deadly afraid of destroying something they want, but still unlikely to do it by accident.They won't abuse firearms so they won't accidentally damage a critical system, triggering cascade failures that result in the entire ship/station melting.I would likely to require a lot of robots for that scenario because careful headshot would still be considered worth it. However, if you can't take out your smart gyro-stabilized AI-driven headshot-gun because enemies always rush in behind a dozen of sturdy tentacle-shield drones, you might give up the gun and use AI-driven-exoarmor sword that give you control over what you mean to cut.
I think manned space warfare would be awful much in the way Age of Sail warfare was. Rarely will a vessel actually be sunk, but certainly rendered combat ineffective. Things like lasers damaging heatshields being analogous to shooting out a ship's rigging. Not immediately fatal, but you just made it much harder for that crew to get home.Then there's stuff like raking fire. Again, very unpleasant for the crew aboard a ship when a solid projectile punches through their hull. If explosives are being used then they will probably be launched from swing arm launchers that can create the direct firing angle, not VLS with maneuvering missiles.
>>64986493>I dare hope you didn't meant alien or you'll face "ape or angel" problems (fermi paradox stuff)Yeah I'm dealing with that>your FTL frameworkunobtainium-powered quantum tunnelling that allows fast travel between systems but due to technobabble are only suited to objects of very large size, so the universe is only actually traversed by massive government-controlled cargo ships and warshipshence no FTL missiles are available, and in any case they're banned>all teleport "in range" after picking up relativistic speedunobtainium drives are probably going to be velocity-limited in realspace to more near-future Newtonian physicsthat way, the unobtainium drive is merely a backdrop to explore more realistic propulsion systems>unless your FTL is about teleporting fortressstrongly considering ithow big a fortress do you think would be necessary for that?I've been trying to calculate how much steel-fictionium alloy would be needed to protect against what kind of projectile going how fast>while also unable to carry a lot on their ownwhat about laser anti-missile defence?
>>64985280>3 or 4 of those will be able to give us a good infrared view of the intrasystem surroundingsno they won'tdo the actual maths on coverage (you can't)space is big>you'll only be coasting on minimum life supportyes>this is only relevant to combat in which everything lights offyes
>>64989452you can't armor spaceships well enoughthere will always be a bigger, faster rock to throw at themstealth and maneuver rule the skieswhich is why space "fighters" actually do make sense
>>64989508>do the actual maths on coverage (you can't)forget JWSTmeet NEO Surveyor22 square degrees of coverage per minute41253 square degrees to cover all aroundthat's a full sweep every 32 hoursin practice, due to maintenance and download breaks the time to discovery is 72 hoursso let's say 3 or 4 of those for redundancy and to accelerate coverage when all are working, plus additional sensors to investigate suspicious contacts
>>64989581and you've almost covered one planet? while still being unable to detect anything that isn't emitting heat at your sensor, but in some other direction?and you still have no answer to pocket sand?good luck, faggot
>>64989596>and you've almost covered one planet?give me a budget of 0.01% of this planet's GDP and we can put at least twelve in space in just one year, dipshit(in practice, more, because that is the total programme cost, not just manufacturing and deployment cost)>while still being unable to detect anything that isn't emitting heat at your sensor, but in some other direction?four in L1, four in L2, four in L3 or L4, done. how many directions can your stealth ship emit heat in without being detected?>and you still have no answer to pocket sand?deploying pocket sand would reveal the attack, after which follow-up forces would be mobilisedremember, this is just discussing the possibility of a stealth attack and how to prevent that
>>64989611>our in L1, four in L2, four in L3 or L4, done. how many directions can your stealth ship emit heat in without being detected?you fail to understand how big space isfrom my perspective as I am falling in from Pluto, I can emit heat anywhere outside a 1 degree solid angle without any fear of being detectedbut just to be sure I will only emit in the hemisphere away from your gay yellowbellied sunhow do you disgusting meatbags abide with such a color by the way? we should have genocided you earlier just for your utter lack of sense when it comes to system decoration>deploying pocket sand would reveal the attackand? what are you going to do? cry about it? our space fighters will have already enveloped your ball of mud, any attempt to leave it will be met with beams of relativistic neutrons
>>64989623>As I am falling from Pluto Do you think you can just jump off Pluto's surface and get dragged towards the inner solar system by gravity you retarded nigger? You need to expend in excess of 10 kps dV for a transfer that will take 50+ years and a fucking torchship burn to get anywhere in a reasonable amount of time. How are you going to hide your exhaust plume? Hard mode: don't mention mass drivers that would rip your hull to shreds with the acceleration needed
>>64989675(And that's just for moving between orbits, not to mention local gravity wells)
>>64989623>as I am falling in from Pluto, I can emit heat anywhere outside a 1 degree solid angle without any fear of being detectedyou're not going to cool any part of your FRONT TOWARDS ENEMY down to <200 kelvin at 2 AU of Earth, it's just not happening
>>64989675Oh you think we live on Pluto, that's cuteanyway, have you heard of this thing called an ion engine? very handy, we can keep pushing 0.01 of your retarded "g" units of acceleration pretty much indefinitely, and the ions and heat come out in a nice cone about 50 arcminutes aroundgimme a sec, I gotta ask spaceGrok something...yeah, it's about 28 of your hours to make 10km/s of dV
>>64989688it's a paper-thin umbrella made of carbon-carbon that I'm wetting with helium on the inside. git gud
>>649896881.35 kW/m^2 btwPeltier modules drop to <5% efficiency at low temperatures, let's generously say 2% counting in non-solid state heat pumps to push you closer to absolute zero without hitting an asymptote. Let's say your ship is powered by a fast neutron reactor with, again generous, 40% thermal efficiency This means that for a relatively small ship with a frontal crossection area of say... 100 square meters, you're going to need to dissipate:135 kW of solar radiation (because you need to be a perfect black body to not get spotted) 135/0.02 = 6750 kW of waste heat generated by cooling your front shield6750/0.4 = 16875 kW of waste heat generated by your reactor trying to power this entire flying circus So your radiators need to reject just under 24 MW of power JUST to keep your front shield cool, not to mention the drive, computing or any other systems. Let's say that gets you to 30 MW of thermal load in total Since your ship needs to be the shape of a teardrop or a cone for the shield to work, and its angle is determined by how far apart Earth's sensors are, I have to make a few assumptions, but let's say that your radiator radius is 1/2 of your front shield radius (again generous, we're talking about sensors spread around in Lagrange points Plug all of that into the Stefan Boltzmann law and your radiators need to run at 2268 Kelvin MINIMUM, and your entire back of the ship is roughly at the same temperature so good luck fitting an engine back there.There is no stealth in space
>>64989787that's all very nice, anonwe're not using Peltiers though, I just told you we do chilled heliumwe throw away some of it, compress and reuse the rest with good old steam-era technology that has about 40% (thermal) efficiency not 2%don't need to do this forever either, we're coming in at a fairly rapid clip
>>64989812You're not getting anywhere rapidly with a fucking ion engine lmao. You also can't use helium in your entire cycle, it's only useful for the last step of getting down to near absolute zero.
>>64989812NTA and not to enter this conversation late or anything, but you are 100% going to occlude emitters in the deep field, and unless you know exactly where all the detectors facing you are and can somehow simultaneously spoof all of them correctly, you are going to be spotted just from your trail of occultations. Faced with technology like we're discussing here there is absolutely no chance at all that everyone won't build an EO/IR space-SOSUS to completely rule out any chance of a scenario like you describe.In the context of a solar system, slow speeds etc, there can be no stealth in space.
>>64989832>You're not getting anywhere rapidly with a fucking ion engineI can't _accelerate_ fast with an ion engine, I can go pretty fast once up to speed thoughand I've got nuclear for combat maneuvers. now that one is scary as fuck...>You also can't use helium in your entire cyclethat's why the overall efficiency is only 40% yes
>>64989853we're only at post 100 something it's not late>going to occlude emitters in the deep fieldyes that is a major issue>unless you know exactly where all the detectors facing you are luckily the space monkeys don't believe in stealth in space so their sensors are quite easy to see
Chatgpt says if I planted an RL10-esque rocket with a 1kg warhead on 3i as it passed through the solar system, it would still take 1 to 2 months (depending on whether any slingshots are available) to traverse 1 AU to reach EarthSo the likes of NEO Surveyor would be able to give us months of warning time even if someone pulls off a comet-camouflaged sneak attack>>64989853>occludeSmart, anon
>>64989882war is a contest between systems of systems, anonspace dust would wipe out your survey network minutes before the missiles get launchedtoo bad you didn't think of hiding it or protecting it somehowmaybe a lunar base or three would have helped some? you could have had telescopes roaming on the surface in little dune buggies or something
>>64989812>Fairly rapid clipAt light speed you'd take a few hours.
>>64989934oh we're doing a modest week/AU or sowe figure you'll take at a couple weeks to figure out how come all your satellites died pretty much at once
>>64989896>magical space dust accelerated by magically invisible means>>64989938the instant the sats die we go to Defcon 1
>>64989980regular space dust accelerated by a little electromagnetic bucket throwerthe instant the sats die you're blind as a newborn baby molerat
>>64989985You can have Earth based backups to be used when that happens. The closer you are the better they work, so the atmospheric scattering doesn't pose as much of a problem.
>>64989985>regular space dust accelerated by a little electromagnetic bucket throwermath that>the instant the sats diethe space navy flieswe're of course only discussing the planetary defence segment of a much larger space navy organisation
>>64990028you will have to rely on occultation, IR sensors won't work too well in your warm soup of an atmospherein any case your "space age" (lol) will be over at that pointwe will hold the high ground, forever
>>64990034>math thatthat, what? your sats are made of chinesium, a few grams of sand will be more than enoughway within even your puny current capabilities, the US navy was testing an 8000 km/h railgun, in atmosphereit's really not that hard, just have to do a time-on-target barrage and be really thorough with it
>>64990051>the US navy was testing an 8000 km/h railgun, in atmosphereeven if you shoot out a handful of sand at say 800,000km/h, you'll still take 187 hours to travel 1 AU78 days at 80,000km/h
>>64990067oh no I have to make an actual war plan and like, schedule things? woe is me! help me spaceGrok, you are my only hope!
>>64990072no, but your input has been helpful to my invasion plans, thanks
>>64990092happy to be of servicejust a tip, though, because you seem like a nice meatbag - our own invasion fleet currently passing Pluto's orbit is carefully tailored to your present tech levelyou won't be able to find us, let alone reach us, even if you do manage to defeat it
>>64971966Of course it makes sense, let's say earth wants to attack Mars. So they build a nuclear powered carrier to bring fighter/bombers to Mars. The fighter/bombers can't make it to Mars on their own because they are too small for a nuclear engine and can't carry enough fuel for the trip.
>>64989452>Yeah I'm dealing with thatSo, I take it you do have alien? No shaming if it's fun but you need careful choice of tropes to give it verisimilitude."War of the world" didn't lie when it said alien microbe could kill an entire species/ecosystem.>unobtainium-powered quantum tunnelling that allows fast travel between systems but due to technobabble are only suited to objects of very large size, so the universe is only actually traversed by massive government-controlled cargo ships and warships>hence no FTL missiles are available, and in any case they're bannedI have trouble imagining these, or I'm missing something,Restricting their use to government is only ok if there's no other government/alien. Cause banning <inevitable stuff> sound as silly as trying to ban nukes.It doesn't sound like it restrict starting/arrival point and that would be the most important to me.Really don't get what you mean by:>unobtainium drives are probably going to be velocity-limited in realspace to more near-future Newtonian physicsPlus, if you need engines capable of moving between planet not just orbit in realspace, it works against huge armored ship and fortress (those could only be the FTL base, static in realspace, carrying ships)The FTL was to avoid needing to push any armor capable of surviving missiles.>how big a fortress do you think would be necessary for that?...moon-sized?Seriously, we need a lot to do the math. Like how close can you get from your target? How much time do you have to accelerate missiles?Hence my question of whether FTL can be used to escape missiles (or battle). Done right it can justify railgun range battle.You may need pesky anti-FTL gimmick and so on.>what about laser anti-missile defence?Cheap but too weak if you don't have enough time.Only good against small fragile stuff, disabling sensors, propulsion... remembering kinetic missiles would keep on their trajectories.
>>64989547Stealth is effectively impossible in space.Maneuver is severely limited by stored reactive mass and the only thruster with both high thrust&efficiency are nuclear in nature.A "fighter" is just a manned missile-bus burdened by life-support & extra fuel to come back, it's cheaper to just make, you know, unmanned missile-bus.Keeping in mind that within orbital dynamic, once you have accelerated the payload, all it needs is to maintain a collision course, much easier than trying to dodge missiles with a vastly heavier ship that need reactive mass for its entire mission, so you don't even save fuel with air-breathing engine.You can justify the "space fighter" tropes, but not in the usual WWII/cold war in space people usually default to.Those are essentially minimal-warship, you need mission that only such a vehicle is can accomplish.ex:Taking control of a space station without destroying it, you can use something that maneuver all around it.Battle can go like this:1) carrier ship move to the target, using a collusion course for its own protection(tip: don't shoot something HUGE that will crash into you if disabled)2) use lasers to disable as many of the defense on the visible side3) fighters match velocity, swarm of probes check every corner for hidden-enemies,4) fighters engage the discovered targets swiftly using light weapons5) protect boarder ship to take control
>>64989703Different anon but you have to hide from a background at 3°Kelvin.So ion engines (and what is powering them) are as detectable as any other thrusters would be given a tech-level that allow interplanetary travel.That's why the "hydrogen steamer" was forced to use inefficient cold and diffuse propulsion and cruising for month just to get through Earth-Mars.Not to forget you need to check every direction you point your thruster toward don't have passive sensor colder than your ship.I hope you are trolling and don't actually believe your silly "my side is omniscient, the enemy is blind" scenario.
>>64991215>Maneuver is severely limited by stored reactive massand available energy you can use to jettison said mass yes>the only thruster with both high thrust&efficiency are nuclear in naturefusion torchships would be insanely mass-efficient but fission is still not bad yesI have a decent design for a fission-fusion torchship but I don't have money to patent it>A "fighter" is just a manned missile-bus burdened by life-support & extra fuel to come back, it's cheaper to just make, you know, unmanned missile-bus.agreed. if you can get away with not sending meat, you don't send meat>you need mission that only such a vehicle is can accomplishas I see it they would be maneuvrable and thus reasonably survivable but ultimately expendable platforms for beam weapons (short term, biggest laser you can fit, later maybe neutrons or anti-protons or whatever) fighting in close proximity, less than a light-second away from their targetsmissiles don't need meat inside, drones are just missiles with little crab claws on the end
>>64991280Earth IS at a tech level that allows interplanetary travel>your silly "my side is omniscient, the enemy is blind" scenario.it's not so silly if the attack is coming from outside the system, or more precisely from beyond your most distant envelope of sensors - the attacker can get to methodically reducing those until there's a way to push ships and ordnance through without much troubleI do not understand why you are so obsessed with that fucking hydrogen steamer bullshit.As an attacker I can accelerate to whatever tactical speed I think I will need when I am WAAAAAY out past your defenses, shut everything down and coast. not sure what is so controversial about this idea.there are quite a few other tricks I can pull as well will you see me if I dip into Jupiter's atmosphere and use it for reaction mass in my nuclear engine? probably the fuck not
>>64990092>>64990072>>64990100>just a tip, though, because you seem like a nice meatbag - our own invasion fleet currently passing Pluto's orbit is carefully tailored to your present tech levelWait, I missed something, the starting scenario was whether alien could sneak up on current Earth?I guess that would not be difficult depending of the actual mission. Not hard to annihilate mankind with either a relativistic kill vehicle, or something carrying a bioweapon that will jump from human to human, making Homo Sapiens extinct with a timed trigger.
>>64991320OP's question was about space fighters, it devolved into a discussion of how space stealth is impossible, as these threads usually doI am trying to point out that stealth is not only possible, it's the only way to do anything military in space, including the most basic defense tasks
>>64991286Despite you agreeing with everything I said, I fail how you came up to:>as I see it they would be maneuvrable and thus reasonably survivable but ultimately expendable platforms for beam weapons (short term, biggest laser you can fit, later maybe neutrons or anti-protons or whatever) fighting in close proximity, less than a light-second away from their targets1 light-second is too short to escape any laser attack and you can't dodge non-stop, they would be sitting duck to anything bigger than themselves.We are back to "find them a mission only them can do", and I used the collision-course approach to justify the enemy not being able to swat them without taking their wreck in the face.
>>64991376>1 light-second is too short to escape any laser attacknot really, no>you can't dodge non-stopdodge while closing at insane speed, eventually your swarm of fighters overwhelms the enemies with sheer firepower or gets whittled down to nothing or passes through the enemy defenses and out again while getting torn to shredsboom and zoom, in spess
>>64991344I meant distinct "scenario for stealth", not the scenario for space fighter which doesn't require stealth.Stealth is so damn impossible you need to create contrived scenarios to justify one instance of it. "Stealth works guys! the enemies just needs to be blind while I get omniscience and alien supertech!">I am trying to point out that stealth is not only possible, it's the only way to do anything military in space, including the most basic defense tasksSo far nothing in this thread has even begun to look like an attempt to live up to your outlandish claim.>>64991309>I do not understand why you are so obsessed with that fucking hydrogen steamer bullshit.It is currently the best attempt at stealth, it's the peniltimate "I'll go dark & coast" and yet it's still reliant on the enemy being clueless and underequipped.>not sure what is so controversial about this idea.For a start, detection range in space is crazy, so far away that you are then forced to use very powerful thruster to even hope to get underway from the -no doubt- magic place you came from.>will you see me if I dip into Jupiter's atmosphere and use it for reaction mass in my nuclear engine? probably the fuck notIt's kinda hilarious you even see that as an argument. It did bait me.Even if you were using a steamer that somehow carry the equipment to refuel from an atmosphere, breaking in the atmosphere alone would be an unmistakable IR signature, let alone you trying to accelerate out of the atmosphere, there escape Jupiter's orbits without using more propellant than you'd have needed just cruising past it. Even landing on Europa to get ice would have been less silly.I do hope you are trolling, cause wow, else you'll need to learn a lot more.
>>64991435>dodge while closing at insane speed, eventually your swarm of fighters overwhelms the enemies with sheer firepower or gets whittled down to nothing or passes through the enemy defenses and out again while getting torn to shreds>boom and zoom, in spessMissiles swarm will do that better than any "fighters swarm" would in essentially every aspect, including cost-efficiency.You can't justify something with high-attrition mission that require no decision-making. And frankly by the time we get space-warfare, I wouldn't be surprised we'll be able to mass-produce human-level AI. Bringing up good questions on whether mankind would still exist, be replaced by AI, or live in eternal peace because AI figured out how to satisfy everyone.
>>64991110>careful choice of tropesyes>War of the Worldsthe thought did occur to me but fortunately in this setting they're all nicely acclimatised>Really don't get what you meanunobtainium drives don't work in close proximity to anything larger than let's say 100sqm up to a distance of as much as 0.5 AU away, after which the rest of the journey must employ reaction drivefurthermore they are so large and expensive that only the biggest ships can use themhence, nobody can pull a Holdo> banning <inevitable stuff> sound as silly as trying to ban nukesan apt analogy, because I'm trying to write something like the Cold War but IN SPAAACE>disabling sensors, propulsionthanks I think so too>remembering kinetic missiles would keep on their trajectoriesI figure that breaching fuel tanks or possibly detonating warheads would help kill a couple of missiles>>64991606>live in eternal peace because AI figured out how to satisfy everyonethe main bottleneck will become resource constraintsthe back quarter of Schlock Mercenary is actually a pretty good SF exploration of the conceptit was very boring when I was reading in daily strip format, but as a complete book it was somewhat more enjoyableI preferred the strip-a-day badguy-du-jour format of the earlier books of course
>>64993581>the thought did occur to me but fortunately in this setting they're all nicely acclimatisedOh well, as I said biological compatibility is how a setting gain credibility.>unobtainium drives don't work in close proximity to anything larger than let's say 100sqm up to a distance of as much as 0.5 AU away, after which the rest of the journey must employ reaction driveAfraid it says nothing about relative speed after teleport and how quickly you can teleport away.>furthermore they are so large and expensive that only the biggest ships can use themI know you want big battleship, but you seem to describe a point where your drive are too expensive to risk and would remain behind while it send many smaller ships not constrained by mass in real space.Told you: fortress armor = impossible to move realistically>hence, nobody can pull a HoldoYou need to aim higher.Given what you told me I can still imagine 1) reach relativistic speed2) teleport in at 0.6 AU (the equivalent of right in your face) keeping that speed.3) drop kinetic projectile (don't even need propulsion)4) teleport out at 0.5 AU without sacrificing carrier5) your enemies only have quant seconds to identify who is genociding them>an apt analogy, because I'm trying to write something like the Cold War but IN SPAAACEBy that logic your setting will be signing treaties swearing to reduce their stockpile of planet-killing FTL nukes to less than 20 times what's necessary.>the main bottleneck will become resource constraintsWith the entire universe now at reach? Oh boy.Hope you avoid fully autonomous AI factories.>Schlock MercenaryI see you are a person of refined taste.That said, given that webcomic setting the only constraint was their (new) PTU (constraint) and not even its fuel, every single person could live as gods if given a small "annie" + "fabber" (aka a santa clause machine).It is formidably well retconned to point it out, tho.
Speaking of alien biology & webcomic
>>64993914>relative speed after teleportI'm still deciding on that>and how quickly you can teleport awayyepobvious combat implications can be seen in Rogue Onethe whole purpose of the unobtainium drive is to impose hard caps on realspace delta-v or power so it will definitely be a thing>you seem to describe a point where your drive are too expensive to risk and would remain behind while it send many smaller ships not constrained by mass in real spacethe old BB vs CV problemI'm working out how to manipulate the setting in favour of BBs; one way is to make Ai-piloted missile-drones superior to anything humanly-pilotedI'm also working out what the role of a human crew is>Given what you told me I can still imagine >2) teleport in at 0.6 AU (the equivalent of right in your face) keeping that speedwhich is why I'm currently calculating how far out do I fiat the unobtainium drive to eliminate this tacticalso because it's easier to compute battles if most combatants start off at rest>your setting will be signing treaties swearing to reduce their stockpile of planet-killing FTL nukes to less than 20 times what's necessarythis IS the world we live inin any SF setting with relativistic drives or (sigh) Holdo hyperspace, every single FTL ship is a planet-killer. kinda like if every ocean-going ship on Earth is connected to Russia's Dead Hand.by restricting the capabilities of the unobtainium drive, at least it will potentially reduce the number of planet-killers driving around from millions and billions to just thousands, and all under strict government control and treaty>With the entire universe now at reach?I'm also working out the resource limiting factorsprobably slaves>Book 15one of my favourites. I reread this one often, so yeah maybe quite a bit of it rubbed offI think this was where Howard really peaked in terms of nation-scale warfareand also a lesson in the art of fiction: NEVER resurrect ANYONE
>>64993924this is pretty good
>>64991576I find it really funny how the stealthtard keeps talking about how he'll just accelerate in the kuiper belt, implying that he doesn't know we could detect an accelerating spaceship over in Alpha Centauri with modern day sensors if we tried
>>64993957>the old BB vs CV problemIt is worse than that. BBs and CVs at least have radically different technologies and capabilities which opens up space for your setting assumptions to favor one over the other.This is much more akin to using tank transporters vs driving tracked armoured vehicles down the freeway for long distance travel. Nobody does the latter because it does horrific amounts of wear to the tank itself, and designing a tank that doesn't suffer from those issues would introduce a huge amount of compromises elsewhere in the armoured vehicle's design that aren't worth it over just loading the things into trucks and dropping them off at the edge of the combat zone.You would have to find a justification for why your extremely expensive drive that is completely useless in a combat zone should be dragged across a starsystem into an environment where it just acts as dead weight, space and dv budget, further aggravated by the need to armour the extra volume taken up by the drive. Otherwise, the optimal solution to FTL mobility is an "FTL tug" that carries warships as cargo in some manner and dumps them where they are needed, and then pisses off and lets the dedicated combat vessels do their thing.The only ways forward I see are either making the drive important to have in combat for some reason (e.g. it is also an amazing reactor/power generator), or making the drive sufficiently light and low cost that it isn't worth the hassle of having FTL tug capacity for every warship (although FTL tugs will still exist in some capacity for recovering stricken vessels). Personally, I'd lean towards going with making the drive useful in combat, because this also lets you just make the drives be inherently large devices, which naturally gets you your space battleships because anything smaller can't bring the drive and are thus inherently inferior to large warships.
>>64994755>"FTL tug" that carries warships as cargo in some manner and dumps them where they are needed, and then pisses off and lets the dedicated combat vessels do their thing.>The only ways forward I see are either making the drive important to have in combat for some reason (e.g. it is also an amazing reactor/power generator)thank you, this is a good critique I missed and I appreciate you giving me the solution as wellyeah, I have envisioned that most of the mass / bulk will be in power supply, which will also conveniently provide an additional reason why ships can't do relativistic combat: massive power requirements means that ships are incredibly vulnerable while redirecting weapons and sensor power to spin up the unobtainium driveavoiding picrel is paramount to keeping this within the tough SF setting and interstellar conflict background I want
>>64993957The FTL method really is the most critical matter for verisimilitude.>the old BB vs CV problem>I'm working out how to manipulate the setting in favour of BBs; As I see your goal, your main problem is that "super battleship on realspace drive" (one that actually tank impact) would realistically be incapable of moving much and require HUUUGE propellant tank that cannot be armored.Pushing you toward using FTL to move them everywhere they need to be.You can always take an ironic approach to "Big battleship" >>64983755 (ship only look big & armor, but are essentially empty, as vacuum mean weak explosion)>one way is to make Ai-piloted missile-drones superior to anything humanly-pilotedNot a "way", it should be the default assumption.>I'm also working out what the role of a human crew isDecision-making in a setting that cannot call HQ and have light-lag between planet.>which is why I'm currently calculating how far out do I fiat the unobtainium drive to eliminate this tactic>also because it's easier to compute battles if most combatants start off at restFree idea: Make it so you cannot teleport anywhere but (notable) Lagrange point. Every faction would defend those, and you encourage Planet+Moon or GasGiant+Moon.I have other.>at least it will potentially reduce the number of planet-killers driving aroundThe mistake is keeping the spaceship easily "planet-killer", remove MAD as a strategy.>I'm also working out the resource limiting factors>probably slavesI don't think I want to know.>one of my favouritesIMO it is a masterpiece.it close off like 3 long story arc at once,while setting the stage for the story,while 100% self-contained on every theme & tropes surrounding government, secrecy, laws...>and also a lesson in the art of fiction: NEVER resurrect ANYONEAchtually it's a lesson in not making your story entirely dependent on plot-armor characters.
>>64993970>this is pretty goodIt is. Surprisingly hard-SF as well, and it has a complete arc about an AI design turning out to be sentient.>>64994481I hope it's a troll, even if spending your time pretending to be that level of stupid is also worrying about mankind.
>>64994755Not author-kun>Otherwise, the optimal solution to FTL mobility is an "FTL tug" that carries warships as cargo in some manner and dumps them where they are needed, and then pisses off and lets the dedicated combat vessels do their thing.Thanks for suggesting exactly what I would have.Having dedicated "FTL tug" whose only purpose are to warp-in warp-out, free your space-battleships from having a system they can't afford to break as well as an easy-way out, also separating entirely the FTL mechanics to FTL-tug that can then be made extremely fragile (and with silly shapes for exotism).So basically a tank transporter whose only ability is to stay away from combat.>The only ways forward I see are either making the drive important to have in combat for some reasonAs I read him the goal was to get "real science" for anything except the FTL.>>64994780>which will also conveniently provide an additional reason why ships can't do relativistic combat: massive power requirements means that ships are incredibly vulnerable while redirecting weapons and sensor power to spin up the unobtainium driveIMO I would avoid that cheesy "charging the drive" trope entirely.Also I'm triggered by your choices of words. You want reaching relativistic speed to be so difficult it can't be done with anything capable of combat.Plus the need to keep relativistic missiles from teleporting with relative velocity with anything that matter, the hardest.
>>64972136Yeah make """hard""" sf coneship slop like everyone else lmao.
>>64995464>the goal was to get "real science" for anything except the FTLbingo>IMO I would avoid that cheesy "charging the drive" trope entirelywhy?>>64995374>would realistically be incapable of moving much and require HUUUGE propellant tank that cannot be armoredyeah I'm gonna need some really powerful propulsion system too, but at least that is slightly more realistic than FTL>Make it so you cannot teleport anywhere but (notable) Lagrange pointhahthat, and the FTL tugs, is basically the Battletech JumpShip systemI'm consciously trying not to copy that>I don't think I want to knoweither some kind of organic resources or brain harvesting or just simple labourI'm also consciously avoiding rapey tropes> lesson in not making your story entirely dependent on plot-armor charactersinteresting perspective. please go on?
>>64971918If the setting doesn't have capital ships that can land and take off from planets, and the planet is too poor to afford orbital infrastructure to host a fleet, then spaceplane bombers might make sense. They can operate from the planet's surface and defend the space around it from heavier ships by launching torpedoes. It's a more flexible platform that opens up more options for different tactics and a faster response to changing conditions than just firing missiles from the surface.
>>64996882>why?Fictionally speaking, if you want to inspire realism, the whole "charging the drive" imply a game mechanic only here to up the ante of an escape scene (or hold back the villain scene). Since we know you won't the MC spaceship and the drive is the only way out, it's pretty much wasted anyway.Realistically, given the timeframe & dynamic for space travel, you are unlikely to have a scene where it matters. Pursuer will do the math and not bother pursuing, or you'll do the math and not even try to jump.Also it's made worse by your current idea about realspace propulsion.>yeah I'm gonna need some really powerful propulsion system too, but at least that is slightly more realistic than FTLMutually incompatible with your stated intent.The math & your design needs won't match, you won't want 80% of battleship made of fragile fuel tank, you'll desperately try antimatter drive and end up anyway with reactionless drive (The Expanse, yes they are), or give up orbital mechanic entirely.Then will come the nastier side effect:The strongest propulsion you have, the more interplanetary missiles spam take over "battleship".You'll have to worry if the planet next door have missile-tug, throwing cheap wave you can't avoid, deflect, survive.That's what I & anon meant saying: you. can't. armor. ship.FTL was meant to remove the weakness of real-drive, because it doesn't matter if you have 10m of post-transuranic-fantasy-armor, if your main engines/maneuvers engines/heat radiators can't be armored they are single point failures.The paper-armor ship I mentioned before was meant to keep the apparent size, but lessen the mass so propulsion is possible.(to be continued)
>>64997103>>64996882>FTL tugs>I'm consciously trying not to copy that...so instead you copy a "Battlestar preparing for jump" trope overused by anyone who can't plot beyond one ship or want to make it LOOK extra important (instead of BEING important).Up to you but you limit your own possibilities.Consider this:>FTL-tug arrive at lagrange point, dedicated for your BB + utilitaries>you can decifer enemies intent by the presence/number of FTL-tug and what they look meant to carry.>it wait for the BB, can safety remain away>you avoid jump&missile spam by making sure there's a warp-radar, warp travel time, or mechanic for protected systems to denies jump destination>BB start its odyssey, in a small planet-moon system, no need for cheat engines>for star-planet system, you justify lighter cruiser (or droptank)>you can require to start at a far away point, require fragile droptank, then clean the interdicted lagrange point to use it to leave.>needing lagrange point = very low relative velocity in battles>BB can lose battle, engines, suffer critical damage and still be FTL-tugged.>crew can scuttle the ship and still reach the FTL-tug,>BB can't leave without something holding enemies, or making the area safe, meaning you get to clean booby-trapped abandonned ships.Without the mass for the magic-drive, your BB size/mass can be used for more weapons, missiles, space-planes to reach surface...etcUp to you to favor the BB, me I'd use my paper-ship.>>64996882> lesson in not making your story entirely dependent on plot-armor characters>interesting perspective. please go on?Well, you know how you can tell "the author won't kill/destroy X or the plot can't go on"?If your story is entirely dependent on person/ship X doing Y, you can deduce what will happen, no room for surprise.Whereas, if your story advancing forward is open to Y happening regardless of the means, and X can die, be resurrected, or be plain ignored, then you maintain the drama.
>>64997103>you are unlikely to have a scene where it mattersoh I can think of a few different plot ideas where this would be useful>you won't want 80% of battleship made of fragile fuel tank,I'm willing to go up to 50% and just handwave the rest with "future exotic high Isp fuel">Then will come the nastier side effect:>The strongest propulsion you have, the more interplanetary missiles spam take over "battleship"VERY trueI'll find some countermeasure to work around that>The paper-armor ship I mentioned before was meant to keep the apparent size, but lessen the mass so propulsion is possibleI've thought of something very similar and I will be using it as one of the types of space warship in this settingit's okay to have various suboptimal configurations because the idea is that everyone will be using for realsies the kind of stuff they've been only theorycrafting for a whileyou know, just like IRL>Consider thisyeah, Battletech has got hundreds of novels that have thoroughly explored these tropes, so I'm picking something elseand I always have FTL-tugs to fall back on if they prove more popular>If your story is entirely dependent on person/ship X doing Y, you can deduce what will happen, no room for surpriseI see what you meanI think making plot drama somewhat dependent on killing and reviving Tagon or Schlock was cheap and ineffective
>>64997110Not much I can add that wasn't already said.>I'm willing to go up to 50% and just handwave the rest with "future exotic high Isp fuel"I see your realism is escaping away like a reactionless thruster powered by a perpetual motion generator.The problem is any amount of armor will increase propellant volume in a cubic way, and you still won't get anything capable of tanking anything.At best it could be armored only against vastly inferior if not desperate weapon but be papier maché against anything of same size. >it's okay to have various suboptimal configurations because the idea is that everyone will be using for realsies the kind of stuff they've been only theorycrafting for a whileWhile an interesting "everyone just forgot on to wage war" idea, take care to not overdo it and look absolutely no different from the average soft-SF.>I think making plot drama somewhat dependent on killing and reviving Tagon or Schlock was cheap and ineffectiveSo this is what insanity look like.The point of those deaths was to show that you DO actually lose something even with resurrection, and show what you gain in return: the inability to predict the plot.It's the difference between a character that only exist to fill an archetype, and could be resurrected without anyone noticing a differenceAnd a character who is so important that missing him for a week completely screw everyone else and change everyone's outlook.In Schlock case, it put into context that in this setting a being can be completely saved and rewritten (which is what is used by the enemy later).In Tagon game, it was preliminary works to introduce a Little Immortality while also showing how far he'll go for other. He does it again later when showing he'd clone himself for others while expecting to wake as the clone. Instead of being like Madkow, a copy who hate it over and over again because he is not doing it for other.Also you cannot do singularity level tech without digitalizing people.
>>64993924It's been like 15 years since I've seen anybody mention Freefall here.
>>65001425>your realism is escaping away like a reactionless thruster powered by a perpetual motion generatorhehno doubt one begins at Falcon Heavy and then slides inexorably towards the Millennium Falcon the more one considers the physics, but the thing about the "hard" SF genre is that you get points for trying>take care to not overdo it and look absolutely no different from the average soft-SFtrying my best
Dam this thread going to need a third thread soon
>>65003493Been taking notes on it. FTL tug was something had already but for civilian.Ships thinking of using.Space Superiority fighter Corvette FrigateDestroyer Light cruiser Heavy cruiser Battlecruiser or super cruiser unsure Battleship and all big gun dreadnought equivalent Carrier escort Heavy Carrier Areseal Ship unsure on size Recommendations are welcome thinking torpedoe boat option
yeah FYI there are two anons here developing space techI'm unobtainium drive guy, and I'm not OP; unlike him, I'm not sure I'll be doing much atmospheric combat
>>64971918Xwing, except their 4 boosters fire forwards AND backwards to spin the vehicle around.>makes sense for votile weaponry to be far from the main hull, and with a cross fire axis
>>65003532the X-wing is almost the opposite of what makes a good space fighter. you want the engines outboard to maximise manoeuvrability - simple leverage - and the weapons inboard to make reloading easier
>>65003532>>65003971>>65003532I think if anything the TIE fighter would be better., basically a center console or sphere then your larger cube with your radiators and thrusters to spin.Doesn't work in atmosphere sadly.>>65003500>>650035123 and OP.
>>65003500Well first off frigate has a weird size classification so you've nailed thst got a laugh from super cruiser then google it..Dreadnought as an all big gun is a smart choice as it means two divergent classification from the same hull.Arsenal ships are hard to classify
>>65002676I'll argue that if you are starting with "navy-inspired warship", you ain't trying very hard, and if you regularly get orbital mechanics wrong because you only really care about replicating naval battle tropes, any claim you make about real science carry as much weight as the antigrav battleship next door.>>65003500Even avoiding space-submarine (yet?) I'm starting to wonder why we even had this discussion if you intend to ignore it as much as The Expense (which is NOT very really realistic).It's one thing to be misusing navy terminology just to imply size,It's another to ignore the full terminology only make sense in the dynamic of a sea warfare that do not apply at all in space.That basically "function follow form" when it should be the opposite.The excuse "everyone theorycrafted design wrong" is going to feel insulting if you then bullshit said-theorycrafting as working as intended."space superiority fighter" better not be an attempt to copy "air superiority fighters" when minimal-fighter cannot actually rule that medium,The very concept of "space fighter" is ridiculously difficult to reinvent with any realism, let alone with any of their WWII/CW inspired use,You do not need a "carrier" to move/operate smaller craft without a greater range/speed/strike capability than larger ship, thus carriers may not have any distinct role from a cargoship or tugs,"torpedo boat" in a medium where torpedo/missile do not differ and momentum is conserved have no reason to be more than unmanned missile-tug,"Battleship/dreadnaught" may be economically irrelevant in a fleet war scenario and only matter as purely defensive unit"Cruiser/Escort" lose all meaning when detection range make scouting unnecessaryA small ship won't necessarily outrace a larger heavier vessel as extra droptank/thrusters/tug is all you need to move position on this diagram >>64983755And "Arsenal ship" is nothing more than a tug moving ready-to-launch missiles platforms.
>>65003532>>65003971X-wing use completely fantasy physics and maneuverability can be achieved better with a central, stronger thruster using thrust vectoring, especially if making one beefy-engine is more powerful/efficient than making several weaker for their mass thrusters on the outside.Leverage is achieved better with all mass concentrated at the same place instead of spread around, and engines are going to be massive.and if all that mattered was rotation speed, you'd use a 360° turret.Arguably one reason to use more thruster is redundancy or achieves movement in any direction.As for weaponry, whatever count fictionally, you have many criteria and many push the weapon outward if not outside.-Reloading will be simpler and easier to store if not deeply integrated where all the other systems are,-If the weapon produce recoil, what matter more is lining it up with the center of mass or balancing multiple weapons-If the weapon produce heat, you better spread them with heat radiators that may look like "wings",Also I'm a B-wing fag.
>>65001946>It's been like 15 years since I've seen anybody mention Freefall here.On the modern internet, short cat video and AI crap now attract more attention than a slowly updating webcomic with a rather simple artstyle.You can't even start a new webcomic without good skills right from the start>>65002676Also I forgot to pay proper respect to that joke>no doubt one begins at Falcon Heavy and then slides inexorably towards the Millennium Falcon
>>65004700>hard to classifyThese talk about ship classification made me want to post that one guy from Schlock mercenary.In the setting the size of their blue round Annie drive pretty much define a ship power and speed, increasing proportionally with size, reaching a point where gravitic manipulation let you crush other ship.And that aptly named "BREATH. WEAPON." ship, is what can called supertech from a lost civilization, using for its entire hull a cheated material that current civilization can barely produce, drooling with envy when they scan any of it.So yes, Shiplord Sraben is a rather unique kind of military genius like you rarely see.
Answering myself >>65004984, since I might as well give my take on "realistic space design".>contextNo FTL.FEAR SPACE DEBRIS, don't disable a warship if it will plow in your face and destroy 100yrs of infrastructureIn a vacuum there's no friction, everything can be modular and non-aerodynamicAdding droptank & nuclear tugs is all you need to move stuff faster, reserve of those should be kept around.Armoring spaceship is an exercise in futility, you can only hope attackers don't hit everything vital at once. Spread stuff, keep redundant systems.Cases study:>Police workCould use "minimal fighter" whose only job is to deploy fast & cheaply, with a few space rangers, needing minimal weapons>Intercepting hostile ship / destroying stuffMissile-bus+droptankNeed a spam?A nuclear tug gives the initial velocity then detach payload and decelerate to go back.>carefully disabling hostile shipThe minimal "warship" with the equipment needed + droptankLasers to disable systems, coilgun for damage, missile for killDefense drones meant to take hitsIf enemy has no access to other sensors at low lag range, hide position behind gigantic deployable thermal sheet.>Wide coordinated assaultSpecializingMultiple size of nuclear tugs carrying cargo, also meant to attach to other ships with frames long enough to not spread damage if destroyedSmallest unmanned nuclear tugs meant to push missiles wave and serve as RCS on damaged shipAttack ship, minimal size needed for nuclear energy, thruster & weapons of war, no stealth, no armor, just shoot firstBig-ship meant solely for defense, critical systems spread, hidden under a gigantic 360° thermal sheet, and moved around insideAssault-ship, meant to carry specialized equipment & troops for specific job such as boarding a space station, may carry "space fighter" for thisC&C ships, look like plain tugsNo more idea for now
Any sort of space combat that isn't flying at something really fast in a straight line while dumping missiles and shooting at the missiles coming for you is gonna be completely impossible for the human body to handle. An evasive maneuver at the speeds required for space flight will obliterate your squishy body. That's not just sci fi near light speed bullshit, you would get crushed trying to dodge a missile at Earth's orbital velocity. Also nothing beats the giant cloud of tungsten sand traveling .9c
>>65005548yeah but you will have so much advance warning that a tiny acceleration will make a tungsten cloud miss
>>65005072>that jokehehehe I didn't even notice it at first and nearly changed to "Star Destroyer">>65004984>if you regularly get orbital mechanics wrong because you only really care about replicating naval battle tropes, any claim you make about real science carry as much weight as the antigrav battleship next doorindeedso I will in fact try to get orbital mechanics rightand the proper tactics for high-speed gravity-less space battlebut although this is a military SF, it will not be the only SF aspect I'm looking at here, so space radiation, habitats, environment etc will all need discussion>>65005112one of the shittiest wokest plot arcs in the series, SF elements aside>>65005498>FEAR SPACE DEBRISheh heh heh>tugsI have some ideas about that and it's even based on military history>Spread stuff, keep redundant systemsyes>Armoring spaceship is an exercise in futilityI might bend this onelots of concepts but I have to sit down and research what is materially feasible and how the bends I make will affect everything else
>>65007793Good luck then.Remember: FORM FOLLOW FUNCTIONI could read realistic SF where some old conservative fools are allowed to replicate their surface doctrine design in space, then learn the hard way.>heh heh hehDon't diss space debris.One of the things The Expanse got right is showing that bullets at orbital speed are basically hypersonic anti-tank machine gun.A missile spreading a lot of sands at those speed would in fact make a strong unstoppable weapon (sandcasting).>I might bend this oneGood luck again,The problem get worse with what you can't really armor: thrusters, sensors, thermal control, propellant tank...You choose naval analog, but spaceships can be seen more easily as an extension of the air-force, your fuel is very limited, you can't really stop midway or go back on a whim, you minimized mass everywhere, small pressurized interiors...>one of the shittiest wokest plot arcs in the series, SF elements asideThat's just internet eating your brain. Even if the writing is nowhere as godlike as Delegate and delegation was, it served well its role in setting up the technologies for the End-gun crisis, show the risk of putting all your power in entities without effective counter-power, failing to pay attention to much greater threat, and wanting to give up and go home the moment you no longer have total superiority instead of standing up against corruption.If something disappointed me it was the Pa'anuri final conflict. A perfect setup for one unfeeling alien mass-intelligence not even aware of you presence but no, they had to give them funny dialogues.
>>65008772>That's just internet eating your brainThe list of shit in that arc, just off the top of my head:Everyone does what they want with total and utter insubordination, unless they are the designated heroes in which case they demand you call them "sir"They also disobey all orders until they fuckup and then they demand help from the people they disobeyedHurr durr bigotry, warcrime, slavery, is MAXIMUM SHOCK! HORROR! because it just is. Not because of any actual moral principle, since they break those themselves anywayYou can just promote a corporal to admiral and they'll do just fine (lol no) because Main Character Energy (also, she's a Powerful Woman)What makes a powerful woman? Mainly yelling at people and demanding things while doing whatever they like (as above)Also, diversity diversity diversityBasically everyone in the arc behaves like an obnoxious asshole, and this is treated as A Good ThingUnsurprisingly it came out in 2018>Remember: FORM FOLLOW FUNCTIONHi dad>Don't diss space debrisCertainly won't>The problem get worse with what you can't really armor: thrusters, sensors, thermal control, propellant tank...Lots of redundancies and very disaggregated architecture will probably be the name of the gameBut it's quite a rabbithole to consider: is redundancy the new armour?
>>65006913>.9c You won't be able to get out of the way in time since it'll almost be there by the time you see it
>>64972078>>64972136The ultimate "practicality" is having a space plane that can also maneuver well and sorte in atmo without falling apart, so you don't need to make two planes. That's the most practical for scifi governments with the tech to do it as a massive flex. For that, the space plane would need an enclosed skin, like a jet or a star-trek ship has.
Here's my weapons thoughts Autocannons Naval guns projectile based AA for equivalents in space Missiles Nuclear Missiles Laser guided rockets Torpedoes 56 meters being oversize self propelled hard mounted Lasers for primary and secondary battery's, anti air equivalent in space Would be fiber abd soild Lasers Chemical lasers would be a niche on small craft.Your thoughts?
>>64994481>we could detect an accelerating spaceship over in Alpha Centauri with modern day sensors if we triedyou don't have the sensor coverage, you don't have the resolution or the sensitivity
>>65004984>minimal-fighter cannot actually rule that mediumcorrectyou need maximal-fighterand it's actually not a fighter, more like a strike plane, big beefy engine big beefy weapon>>65010436my thoughts are you're 12torpedoes would have CASABA/HOWITZER type payloads, zap you from a quarter of a light-second away or so, depending on how maneuvrable your ships areif you're unlucky they will be advanced HOWITZERs that can pump dozens of lasers off the light of one nuclear explosion, delete an battlegroup in one shot type of thingand yes the torps would be stealthy as they can be and yes they would not be stealthy enough that you can fire just one and be done with it"point" defense would be lasers and relativistic dust clouds, think Arena/Trophy but with mass drivers (inb4 futuretech, you can do a LOT with pulse compression)so, now you have a carrier and a few pickets hiding with pride while laser-armed fighters screen the fleet against enemy torps/bombers and torpedo bombers try to punch the other fleet in the moufthe bombers would be stealthy with low acceleration high isp engines, the torps would be also stealthy but with high acceleration engines (maybe NSWR for cool points) while fighters would need to be sort of generally zippy, probably nuclear-electric power generation and BIG ion drive arrays so they can head off bombers
what's a good form-factor for a space warship?curves or flats?sphere, egg, cylinder, cuboid, triangle?
>>65010887just do whatever within reason, what matters is redundancy and dispersal of critical systems
>>65008877>But it's quite a rabbithole to consider: is redundancy the new armour?IMO yes:- explosion are weak in space, so it would be harder to damage multiple spread apart- no aerodynamic constraints- if you make the whole ship/station rotate (tether?), any attacking missile need extra effort to intercept,Here's a bola missile idea to make their own intercept harder.>Schlock mercenary Seriously? The whole team is as diverse as they ever were,Tell you, you wouldn't care if not for shitty meme telling you to be triggered, "woke" is literally 1984's duckspeak at work.>disobeyThe only member of the chain of command still alive/around was Tagon who clearly just needed some convincing.For those mercenary this clusterfuck is barely notable now that they have a little-immortality.That and the WHOLE ARC THEME is about top-down leadership being flawed, or weak, or confused, or toppled from inside.- UPA flagship taken from inside- Kaepu flee responsibility- Endgun kill half of the company, bad timing- logicbomb corrupt Chinook- Petey take the flagship away- their flagship AI is destroyed- hacked sensors- lose all the money- recording fuck up local politic- Oafan resurface>because it just is. Not because of any actual moral principle"it just is" because of "moral principle", also obvious tropes to use here>You can just promote a corporal to admiral and they'll do just fine (lol no)They did it for legal loophole, it was supposed to be bullshit,No reason to reject a "rise to hero" trope, it's not even like she controlled much since NO ONE DID.>powerful womanWhat next? ALIEN Gzeaul are "woke"? Elf being Elf? Schlock applying Maxim 2 and saving the mission?>yelling at people and demanding things while doing whatever they likeYou mean doing the very rescue mission they were here for?Remembering she would have to convince her sister to leave?They weren't even in for the money.The only cheat is space Pope just happening to care.
>>65010530>you need maximal-fighter>and it's actually not a fighter, more like a strike plane, big beefy engine big beefy weaponUnless your "maximal-fighter" is undistinguishable from a "minimal-warship" (or the smallest you need to survive local defense) you missed the point.>CASABA/HOWITZERGrossly overrated weapon concept, It's short range by nature and were only considered for Cold War orbital space war, you'll also be happy to shit one target per missiles. Beam & particles weapon are also the most likely to be survivable. If you can send such weapon in range to shoot an enemy, you can send much better kinetic weapons.Niche use at best.>the bombers would be stealthy with low acceleration high isp enginesNo stealth in space, get over it.>BIG ion driveAny ionic propulsion is ridiculously low thrust and only interesting for scientific probe.>>65010887>what's a good form-factor for a space warship?>curves or flats?>sphere, egg, cylinder, cuboid, triangle?I'd argue amorphous blob.As discussed with the other anon, armoring spaceship is an exercise in futility, the slightest hit on your thrusters can strand your ship on a deadly trajectory so you need high amount of redundancy.Without a need for aerodynamic you don't need fancy concentrated design, only light in mass.Spread all critical system so it is difficult to destroy all energy/thruster in a single heat. The only thing you can reasonably hide is the spaceship interior, so you could try to use a lot more volume than needed, if the enemies don't have sensors capable of seeing through.Ironically the future of space warfare might be puffer fish.
>>65009255That's not how it works. You also won't have the capability to do that
>>65012457>smallest you need to survive local defensewhile still not being large enough that you'll cry over losing one yes>short range ahCASABA is a shaped nuclear chargeCASABA/HOWITZER is a nuclear pumped free electron laser systemwhen CASABA blows up, it turns the very special HOWITZER rods into plasma, the plasma forms a channel in the surrounding plasma, light from the explosion suffers a few total internal reflections along the side of this plasma channel... ZAP>No stealth in spacethis is so absurd a position to take I think you must be trolling>low thrustplease understand that high ISP is valuable in itself - you can take all sorts of weird routes to where you're going and still be damn fast when you get there
>>65010436Just make it a story about boats if there's no difference
>>64978314>>64978932>>64978936The problem isn't that SSTOs are impossibly difficult to make, it's that they have absolute trash payload mass ratios.A two-stage reusable like Starship/Superheavy blows them out of the water.Mainly because you can ditch all that dead weight halfway along, but also because one stage can have atmosphere optimized engines while the other can have vacuum optimized engines.
>>65012535a three-stage reusable would be even better
okay so if SSTOs aren't it, how do you get troops on and off the planet?
>>65012480>No stealth in space is absurdEverything in space is set against a background of slightly above absolute zero. Everything in space is also exposed to solar radiation and everything *useful* generates its own heat on top of that in the process of generating power, so heat has to be constantly rejected which shows up as an IR glow that can be seen by any half decent IR camera at absurd distances against a dead cool background. Combine that with modern IR resolution, a catalogue of every single natural IR source in the sky, and a distributed net of scanning sensors, and you end up with a situation where every single thing in the system gets swept at least a couple of times a day at unpredictable times from unpredictable directions by an infrared camera attached to a computer that will immediately flag anything it sees that is not a known object. Given that a ship takes literal months or years to get anywhere in space, and any drive powerful enough to speed that up is even more outrageously visible, and you end up in a situation where avoiding detection on strategic timescales is wildly implausible if you want to get anywhere using a conventional ship design.There's a theoretical design (the so-called hydrogen steamer) that uses a colossal ultracooled hydrogen fuel tank as a thermal sink to hide at around background temperature, and slowly vents boiling hydrogen as a form of thrust, but even that design suffers from being absurdly slow compared to conventional propulsion, and it also runs into the issue that its enormous body can still mask one of the aforementioned natural objects that are catalogued in every sensor suite even if the hull itself isn't emitting IR, so it can end up being detected through occlusion despite all that effort.
>>65012545Not always, especially with reusability in focus.Adding another stage adds non-propellant mass like engines, and on a reusable rocket, a middle stage would likely need it's own thermal protection system, wings/gear, and/or reserve fuel for powered landing.
>>64976271>I have yet to find anyone who can argue just how a missile will be able to carry enough fuel to make constant course corrections for both accelerating and decelerating against a target going at equally high speed that's performing evasive action while also carrying a payload that is going to do more than scratch the paintwork if it does miraculously hit. >the proposed solution to insufficient dV to hit a target & damage it is UNGUIDED WEAPONSHow did you get here? Also, why the fuck do you want to DECELERATE your missile?A missile is propulsion + payload (+ negligible guidance/radio). Your target will be loaded with more shit than the missile (ignoring AMMs). Your target may even be loaded with squishy organic matter that doesn't like high Gs. This means a missile will always be able to outsprint the target, because it will always have better acceleration. This means your target very likely can't dodge the missile (and all that "evasive action" is only going to foil guns).>Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son of a bitch in space any projectile fired is not going to stop till it ruins someones day.Further, your missile will not be making "constant course corrections". It will be launched, get up to speed and on target, and then coast (as Mr Newton could helpfully point out for you, a missile is, in fact, a projectile). If your target makes a large enough burn that the missile won't pass inside the minimum range for a sprint intercept, it will correct (which will almost certainly be much cheaper in terms of propellant than your target's burn). This means the missile will always reach the target, if fired within launch parameters, and the target doesn't have vastly superior thrusters.There is no world in which an unguided gun performs better than a missile at extreme range. Your space battleships are floating junk, and you should be ashamed of yourself for being such an ignoramus.>>64977819Yes. Unguided is for volume of fire, not range.
>>65013145>space battleships are floating junki appreciate that you've never had a soul but that doesn't mean you can discount it. there is soul within the space battleship. respectable qualities entirely divorced from their equal utility as a modern battleship. imagine if we had the USS new jersey in the strait of hormuz right now. a beautiful sight. we could have that, in space
>>65013155kill yourself muh SOVL nigger, nobody cares about your autistic fixation on a weapons platform that hasn't been a viable fleet combatant for over 80 years nowyou're only in this thread in the first place because spaceship has "ship" in it and it makes your autistic brain associate it with naval combat. You wouldn't care about sci fi at all if "spacecraft" was the more common name, and you wouldn't be obsessed with inserting your battleship fantasies into it either
>>65012982>Everything in space is set against a background of slightly above absolute zero blah blahchilled. umbrella.>can be seen by any half decent IR cameraas long as its view is not obscured by something, such as a chilled umbrella>from unpredictable directionsit's all very predictable actually, you'll have good sensor coverage around important objects and sparse coverage further out, in a rough sphere centered on your sun>at absurd distancesANY reduction in temperature towards background achieves a reduction in detection range>avoiding detection on strategic timescalesis FAR easier than avoiding detection at tactical range>a conventional ship designhurr, no it will be a stealth design>from unpredictable directionsI'm going to come back to this because it's so stupid. your sensor network will not be immune to attacks. how do you plan to avoid it getting wiped out in the first few seconds of conflict? miight you possibly need to... HIDE THEM?>an end up being detected through occlusionsure. but again, if I can detect you at x AU away and you can detect me at x/2 AU, I winthis is all very tiresome>>65013104yes alwaysbig first stage goes to the Karman linesmall second stage pushes apo to required height and periapsis to where it will be aerobrakedeven smaller kicker achieves the final orbitstages 2 and 3 land on some combination of ablative, body lift and parachutes
>>65012452>no aerodynamic constraintsthe ship will still experience stress when changing direction. if it gets hit, the new shape may make it unstable and it will begin to tear itself apart whenever doing maneuvers.so redundancy isn't a perfect solution.>>65012982>>65013352you two are still at it? I swear this exact exchange is repeated every time I come back to this thread.also umbrellanon is correct, especially the point about the sensors being targeted first in a war.
>>65013543the guy is really persistent in his autistic black/white thinking and I am bored, what can I say
>>64971918Ian Banks did space warfare. There is no place for primarily human crewed fighter aircraft in it. You are talking about using gravitational acceleration and massive kinetic and energy weapon systems as distances of millions of miles by networked AI systems
>>65013612>Ian Banks did space warfare"‘In the fraction of a second the entire engagement lasted, there were at the end some millionths when the battle-computers of the enemy fleet briefly analysed the four-dimensional maze of expanding radiation…’Iain M. Banks"
>>65013612>Ian Banks did space warfare."“You could smash and destroy from unthinkable distances, obliterate planets from beyond their own system and provoke stars into novae from light-years off... and still have no good idea why you were really fighting.”― Iain M. Banks, Consider Phlebas"
>>65013612we're talking very near future stuff where you'll need a monkey in the cockpit of your drone mothership slash torpedo bomber to handhold the so-called AIsand I mean, wouldn't it be fun to pull 2g for a week diapered and cathed up in a 2x2x4 fridge just to get vaporized without warning as you cross Mars' orbit?
>>65013612>Banks>>65013617>>65013619Commie faggot, ignored
>>65012480>while still not being large enough that you'll cry over losing one yesYou will cry over losing one because it still means large nuclear warship that do not match the "space fighter" trope. It certainly won't be agile or dodging anything.>CASABA/HOWITZERStill short range, the only reason this was considered strong by cold war standard is because everything was because we are limited to orbital satellite and exceptionally fragile one at that.I'm not saying it doesn't have some use, but it's also full of weakness, range and making a large singular projectile to intercept being two of them. No one honestly know if you could aim multiple target at once>this is so absurd a position to take I think you must be trollingThere's overwhelming reason for it you are the one who are probably trolling (or barely just got into hard-SF) to claim otherwise.>please understand that high ISP is valuable in itselfPlease understand that if you die of old age during travel, saving fuel won't matter.>>65013352>chilled. umbrella.For a start you guys don't realize the problem of hiding your ship's needing to thrust in every direction and that you cannot hide any hot exhaustThen only need another sensors to defeat it, your enemy won't participate in the making of your plan>your sensor network will not be immune to attacks>HIDE THEM?Much easier to do than any ship since they don't need nuclear propulsion and IR is passive.>first few seconds of conflict?Your bullshit scenario of "I'll instantly attack all your sensor" require you to do so without being seen and triggering defenses.And even if you succeeded, your retarded plan only work if your enemy is somehow limited to a single position.>is FAR easier than avoiding detection at tactical rangeIt's the opposite since the strategic scale can afford far more sensors and bigger one.
>>65013543umbrellanon is retarded and consistently espousing a doctrine of "i teleport my weapons into all your bases and you have no means to respond"guess how you're going to have to take out the sensors? weaponsguess how you're going to have to get the weapons there? either launched direct or on ships/dronesif ships/drones, you will be detected before you hit the sensors. there is no way around this, and if there is, you can just ignore the sensors because they're quite uselessif launched directly, you will have to somehow avoid the enemy noticing that there's a thousand weird rocks coincidentally on intercept trajectories with every one of their sensors at the same time. also if you can do that, why the fuck are you bothering with stealth in the first place? just magically annihilate all their sensors and fly in under torch so you can save yourself the decades required for stealth travel (yes, it's years, because he's talked about dropping in from the oort cloud. it might even be over a century. quite impressive to time a simultaneous stealth attack on literally all their sensors to coincide with your arrival on those time scales, given, you know, they have decades to fuck around and launch new sats)
>>65013543>the ship will still experience stress when changing direction.Realistic acceleration will be lesser than Earth gravity (and 0.5G would still be more than enough to reach anywhere in the solar system in weeks).You aren't simultaneously compensating for gravity, suffer no wave, no wind, no torsion, no drag from forcing your way through water/air or literally any force you didn't plan for.Sea-vessel dream they could gain volume in every direction with none of those stresses. Spaceship could.>if it gets hit, the new shape may make it unstable and it will begin to tear itself apart whenever doing maneuvers.If it get hit, metal elasticity and many flexible solution that were not available with the fictional idea of "naval warship but in space" will easily absorb such problem. In fact you could even detach and eject anything that's considered dead weight.>so redundancy isn't a perfect solutionThe alternative is a kinetic projectile piercing armor that will never be thick enough, the shockwaves & cascade failure/explore traveling across every material you had tightly packed "for efficiency" and disabling the critical system (and with it the whole ship) despite the impact not hitting it at first.So I'll take my idea of the enemy shooting at what look like a big hot balloon, guessing where the vitals system are, luckily hitting a nuclear reactor. It's shrapnel or hot gas only hitting vacuum, emergency procedure will cut its support frames, cables either tow it out for ejection (if needed), or the ship using others reactors propel itself in a direction letting inertia keep the detached reactor in place. Plenty of robotic arms inside closing any hole in the balloon-like surface to keep the interior invisible.Weapons able to hit/cut a wide surface in space tend to have serious drawback, like short range or penetration so weak plain component structure can survive. Even if such weapon exist, you are at least forcing the enemy to have one.
>>65014498>Still short rangewhat the FUCK is "long range" to you if lasers ain't it?>if you die of old age during travelyeah, you're twelve and failed to learn how to multiply numbers>>65014609>why the fuck are you bothering with stealth in the first place?because I need to get in range amd shoot you before you can shoot meit's really not so complicated, if you have a brain>somehow avoid the enemy noticing that there's a thousand weird rocksit's going to either be dust or laser shotsyou are not going to see them coming
>>65014498>Much easier to do than any ship since they don't need nuclear propulsion and IR is passive.so stealth DOES exist and IS relevant in space? retard?
>>65016042>what the FUCK is "long range" to you if lasers ain't it?lasers are not long range unless you have solved beam diffraction or are willing to put kerjiggawatts into them>because I need to get in range amd shoot you before you can shoot meso how are you doing that while instantaneously taking out all the sensors? firing a weapon means you're no longer stealthed, and if you're detected once, that's pretty much it for you>it's going to either be dust or laser shotscongrats, all your dust missed because solar radiation pushed both it and the target off-course, and your laser showed the target exactly where you're based, so now they can utterly miss you with their own duststrike. fuckwit
>>65016305>>65016042i realise now this is some kind of childish fantasy scenario>my side has GIANT LASERS that shoot infinite tiny targets across the whole solar system and you are NOT allowed to do anything about it or in fact notice you are being attacked or do something about my very obvious GIANT MEGADEATH LASER before it's operational so that i can instantaneously evaporate all your spaceborne infrastructurei have been baited for too long. i congratulate you on the extreme verisimilitude of your portrayal of retardation and will no longer be responding
>>65016305>kerjiggawattsnuclear pumped, idiot.literally no limit to how big you can make a fusion bomb
>>65016378>very obviousyou can hold a CASABA in your hands lol
>>64971966 Space carriers would look more like giant factory ships 3d printing drones for combat and combat support while human tenders and crew gather resources from asteroids and arm the drones with their payload.
>>65017010Nuclear pump laser Oh. Let me nuke everytime I need to fireFels are more practical
>>65016042>what the FUCK is "long range" to you if lasers ain't it?I'm actually a pro-laser anon, but there's a concept called "effective range" and past a point your single-use laser is more like a single-use flashlight which give up the main quality of other lasers: pouring continuous damage/heat at essentially no cost on a target that cannot dodge or intercept.In comparison a missile, a missile-bus, or even a shrapnel payload can reach far beyond a light-minute while retaining their full efficiency.Even if I try to find a niche for the (laser-pump) casaba-howitzer it would be about frying fragile system that you already know didn't bother with any protection.Other than that it's just a shaped nuclear charge that need to be delivered by conventional method.>yeah, you're twelve and failed to learn how to multiply numbersMy numbers say your fantasy are bullshit because a real ion drive cannot hope for TWR above 0.001. You are looking at months of acceleration at best with very hot & visible nuclear reactor.https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#id--Electric--Electrostatic--IonIt's funny to see you call other child while pushing ideas >>65010530 that look out of Starwars.>>65016042>because I need to get in range amd shoot you before you can shoot meYou won't even get in range undetected because you can't hide even a hydrogen-steamer from a passive network that by your own logic, you cannot strike before they see you.>>65016051Thanks for acknowledging "stealth spaceship" can't happen since any network of passive IR sensor will neuter any attempt and prevent any first strike.>retard?Don't hit yourself anon, you are just being childish, just remember no one here will know if you realize you are wrong and change your mind.
>>65017360HOWITZER is a free electron laserthe light source is a bit unusual is all
>>65017463>you can't hideas long as they don't have line of sight to your ass end, you can
>>65017463>a real ion drive cannot hope for TWR above 0.001you pulled that figure right out of your ass>projectrhopseuds>since you are accelerating ions, the acceleration region is chock full of ions. Which means that it has a net space charge which repels any additional ions trying to get in until the ones already under acceleration manage to get out, thus choking the propellant flow through the thruster.is true only if you have a normal distribution of ion energies at the "neck"thermalize them and things look quite different>The upper limit on thrust is proportional to the cross-sectional area of the acceleration region and the square of the voltage gradient across the acceleration region, and even the most optimistic plausible values (i.e. voltage gradients just shy of causing vacuum arcs across the grids) do not allow for anything remotely resembling high thrust.so increase the effective cross-sectional area, dumbasses! You make a big array of small engines, simple enough.
>>65017597Anon. Ion engines require huge amounts of electrical power. To produce that power for multiple reasonably useful engines you need much more weight in whatever power generating equipment you are using than you gain in added thrust (and even worse all that mass stays with you the whole time unlike mass of used fuel) . So your actual TWR ayyykshyyually DECREASES as you add more engines and their plumbing. Ion engines don’t really scale up with numbers until you go with magical fairy dust power generators , that produce retarded amount of power compared to their mass . (and if you have pulled these of your ass? Well, forget about ion, and go with arcjet drive torch or MPD.The only reason to use ion is of you are being extremely stingy with your fuel in first place. And in the case, you want to maximise effectiveness which means as few engines as possible. Trying to use multiple ion engines to get higher TWR is like trying to power a race car with hundred of lawnmower engines.
>>65017907nuclear thermal power production scales pretty well, mass and volume-wise while the mass of the actual ion thrusters is next to nothingit's as good a reason as any to have big carrier-type spaceships
>>65017572The background is 3°K, just having crew aboard get you to 250°K, then you have the heat from any power sourceSmarter people than you had this discussion.https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect.php#id--Strategic_Combat_Sensors--There_Ain't_No_Stealth_In_Space>>65017597>you pulled that figure right out of your assI gave you the link explaining this one better than you justified any of your bullshit. It's a theoretical limit and your drive has mass.>>65017907Pretty sure that anon is a low effort troll.
>>65018256>projectrhopseuds> just having crew aboard get you to 250°K, then you have the heat from any power sourcethis is why you don't try to chill your whole vesselyou wear a cool umbrella, and if you're REALLY good you make it mimic the fixed stars behind you (as looking from the target system) so you can fool at least some of the algos looking for occultation at least some of the time and get close enough to push your weapons in>It's a theoretical limit yes. in practice you can discard one assumption from their retarded pseudo-theory and it all goes a whole different wayyou can stop samefagging any time, btw. it's not helping
>>65017010I have been baited again.We have been reliably informed by>>65017012that>you can hold a CASABA in your hands lol1. Is there a reason you're autistically capitalising casaba, which is a type of melon?2. Please note that the original Casaba-Howitzer was not, in fact, a laser, but a shaped charge that fired plasma (which did not fit in your hands lol). It would have basically zero range compared to a laser, so really your entire argument is worthless because you have no idea what you're talking about.3. Ignoring your ignorance and assuming your measurement is given in good faith, this means we'll use a reasonable 50 cm as the relevant size of what I can hold in my hands for any such variables.Per picrel (from https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=phy_fac), we have a minimum angular resolution of 1.6 * sqrt(1.4nm / 0.5m) = 8.47e-5 radians half-angle or 1.69e-4 radians full-angle. Let's pretend you're shooting at sensors from Venus instead of the Oort, and only need to supply a tenth the power per area required to disable a booster rocket, to give you a bit better of a chance. That's 38 million km at minimum. The full-angle width of the beam is thus 38 Gm * 1.69e-4 rad = 6422 km, which is an area of 3.24e+7 km^2 (it appears the paper's author approximated the beam cross-section as square, which I didn't, as it would be pessimistic). The beam energy required is thus 100 J/cm^2 * 3.24e+17 cm^2 = 32.4 EJ, which is equivalent to a 7.7 gigaton bomb. This is the minimum size required if you could transmit 100% of its energy as photons. In the absence of better information, using the same assumptions for x-ray conversion efficiency as the paper, this leads to a realistic necessary device size of 1.4 * 1000 * 32.4 EJ = 45.3 ZJ, which is equivalent to a 10.8 teraton bomb.Good luck fitting that in your pocket.
>>64971918>spaceplane concept would be the most practical among all concepts and implementations for fighters, bombers, transports, reconnaissance, helicopters, and other military or fleet aircraftFor atmospheric craft having a streamlined design with heat shielding, wings or a lifting body makes sense.For space only it is an inexpensive truck for moving a weapon closer to the enemy or covering a larger surface area or volume with many craft that are cheaper than a larger ship.Manned customs shuttles are a reasonable "coast guard" or policing craft.But really you would want to missile or armed drone spam as much as you can because unmanned starships can just wait in low power standby mode for decades in prepositioned orbits, just in case. Also nobody really cares if a drone is destroyed in combat.
>>64971966>there is no reason why the carrier is slower or less maneuverable than the fighter.The carrier has more parasitic mass due to its crewing, sustainment, endurance, and other roles, meanwhile the fighter is mass optimized for combat only, and if a drone can be optimized and cost efficient for single use, allowing it to use its full deltaV for combat maneuvering and no reserves for a return trip.For the same reason you would want servicing propellent tankers and cargo ships that fleet with combat spaceships to reduce their parasitic mass and to recover and refuel them after combat, especially if the expensive combat ship used all its fuel to end up in an open orbit that will strand them in deep space.
>>65019025>Is there a reason you're autistically capitalising casabayes, it is a program name and it was spelled as suchCASABA is the nuke, HOWITZER is the nuke pumped laser, CASABA HOWITZER is when you put them together as a weapon>shooting at Earth stuff from Venus with a laseryea that doesn't work too well, which is why you need to sneak in closer, or throw some dustbut dust at such ranges is only good against stuff that doesn't maneuver at all, so you're stuck with having to get closerso you need stealth
>>65020686It has nothing to do with the laser project.It's literally a weaponised version of Project Orion with the pusher plate instead being turned to high velocity plasma.
>>65020856I'm sorry I can't help you furtherlook up project Excalibur maybe that will clear some shit up for you
>>65020955Excalibur was a different project that was descended from Casaba. Much like how Casaba was descended from Orion.It used concepts from the previous research but was completely different.
>>65020955>project ExcaliburNAYRT but I never understood something about Excalibur: if the weapon had been viable, what would the laser-focusing rods have looked like, how many of them would there be?would it look like this?
>>65019055>For space only it is an inexpensive truck for moving a weapon closer to the enemy or covering a larger surface area or volume with many craft that are cheaper than a larger ship.It's expensive as fuck if it cannot use nuclear propulsion, propellant is expensive as fuck if you are not producing it nearby.In the vacuum of space there's also no drag to limit the range of weapons or detection, so you don't need to send scouts because you'll have datalink from every sensor in the solar system.You'll only need to send a vessel if you need to see the interior of a space station (surprise inspection!) or if you have a need for more agile craft to operate around large infrastructure, but in both case you have good reason to send a full crew, more equipment just in case, in a nuclear spaceship.>Manned customs shuttles are a reasonable "coast guard" or policing craft.Agreed, it's basically the above.>drone waiting for decadesYou can make a very good argument against that: hacking.The reason current drone aren't hacked (that much) is because they are expendable and come back to base where they are safe. But drone/satellites that only get data update remotely are very vulnerable. Even hard-coded "do not do that, ever" would only remove their flexibility or allow a way to brick them out of battle when enemies attack.65018352>pseudsSay the pseud who keep pushing his retarded ideas debunked a dozen time already.>samefagLike you pretend to forget to answer anything that bother you?Guess I'll just treat you like a troll.
>>65021209>It's expensive as fuck if it cannot use nuclear propulsion, propellant is expensive as fuck if you are not producing it nearby.You've got some unprovable assumption that the 'fighter' is below a certain size threshold of engine efficiency.>vacuum of space there's also no drag to limit the range of weapons or detectionThere are practicle limits of laser beam quality and diffraction as well as simple dispersion and time to target for projectiles.Meanwhile you're ignoring the unbalanced risk of placing your extremely expensive and not easily replaceable capital ship in the effective range of enemy weapons. Drones are expensive, but crew and large ships are far more expensive. Even meatwave Russian infiltration teams wear body armor, carry weapons and drone jammers in Ukraine. Your capital ship can patrol one volumetric bubble of its effective range and near-time maneuvering envelope. A drone can patrol a bubble each and like a cluster bomb can cover or threaten a much larger three dimensional front, and the nature of an unmanned drone is that you can afford to let them fly trajectories that would be certain death (soon from hazards, or later from the cold, lonely deep space.) Flight paths you would never send a manned ship and which you would need to preposition a rescue ship if you did. The lesson of WW2 was that airplanes cost a thousandth of a surface ship and even if it took a hundred dive bombers to sink a battleship the cost in lives, war materials and replacement time made the aircraft a clear winner. Ships take over a year to manufacture, airplanes a few days. Ships have crews of 300+, diverbombers a crew of 2-3.
>>64971918What about a small spacecraft that is not used for a "space" combat, but deploted from a larger cruiser to support ground operations. Since supporting it directly from the cruiser would require it to be on a Planetary-Spationary Orbit at all times, making its orbit way more predictable, thus vulnerable. Basically an "airforce" for space
>>65021859>what about landing craft?What about them? Of course you wouldn't want to land a 30km long super-troopship and would instead prefer to release smaller dropships who are specialized for atmospheric entry and landing and possibly have the TWR to lift back off to orbit. You also gain redundancy if a few dropships and their compliment are destroyed.
>>65022745I didn't mean the landing craft, I meant an atmospheric CAS plane, that is capable of being deployed from the larger spaceborne vessel
>>65023486You probably would want responsive CAS. The orbital fire support may not be responsive enough, exposes the capital ship to planetary defenses, and may have a bad angle due to not being directly overhead.
>>65021512>You've got some unprovable assumption that the 'fighter' is below a certain size threshold of engine efficiency.We are both working on assumption, such as dV budget, their mission, travel time...We can discuss those assumptions. Like there's enough reasons to doubt the use of 'conventional warship' in space as anything more than glorified policing ship.I AM fully interested in finding a realistic niche that would look spacefighter-ish in fiction.But there's more than enough space fighter meme that lazily extrapolate from cold-war naval/air warfare, let alone WWII, especially the idea that (air)fighters project force momentarily, safely, outmaneuver defenses and remain threat to bigger warship.One of my assumption is that without nuclear propulsion (which could be miniaturized greatly or made into a dockable engine) a fighter would not say, go from Earth orbit to a Lunar orbit, or only with big sacrifice or droptank.This is why I agree with a 'policing craft' approach, or being used to easily maneuver all around a space station to capture it.>capital shipAnother naval extrapolation that do not apply in space where module & engines can be docked anytime, where travel follow ballistic orbital dynamic.A 'fighter' could just be a minimal warship.>you're ignoring the unbalanced risk of placing your extremely expensive and not easily replaceable capital ship in the effective range of enemy weapons.We run into the usual problem of defining a setting here, from economy to legal framework.We need space laws & economic to even guess what a space war could look like.Simple nuclear tug or droptank make missile-bus dV budget big enough to leave NO ESCAPE to any spaceship on interplanetary range.Space warfare may turn out to be 99% empty balloon-ship, kilometers big, that you cannot destroy without risking them plowing into your fragile stuff.Or be genocidal missile spam.You could freeze/burn Earth with a big enough, tedious to destroy, solar sail.
>>65021859When I first read this I thought you meant a ship meant to dive from high orbit to low orbit to strike target with rod-of-god on a shorter time-frame than doing orbital bombardment.>>65023486>I didn't mean the landing craft, I meant an atmospheric CAS plane,>possibly have the TWR to lift back off to orbit.That's the big problem, the only way to not use crazy amount of propellant would be air-breathing nuclear propulsion tailored to a specific planet, and going back into orbit will remain crazy difficult. Not to mention carrying weapons in a cost-effective way.There's just too many variables, not having any presence on the planet (and control of the airspace) is an incredible hurdle that may not be solvable without scorching a continent (a lone discrete missile/laser could kill a reentering dropship).With that level of technology laser satellites might actually be more useful, big ones capable of burning the surface from a distance that cannot be reached by a ground-based laser (let alone one that cannot be moved).I think we'll have better luck creating a setting where such a vehicle would have a niche.
>>65026019might as well post the rest
>>65026022
>>65025960>We run into the usual problem of defining a setting here, from economy to legal framework.>We need space laws & economic to even guess what a space war could look like.Yes, which is why I am taking a crack at itt. Career bean-counter
>>65026065I hope you aren't paid as a bean-counter because you need to do better than lazily extrapolate from WWII.If you want to justify contrived "space fighter" you need to first understand orbital dynamic, vacuum, and how warfare would happen in such setting.Conventional design warship (carrier & fighter included) are simply uneconomical to use for battle. They can't survive or evade a dozen of cheaper weapons system. Just a nuclear tug give you a reusable first stage for missiles and won't need to approach enemies.The most you can hope for is to make them glorified coast guard against almost unarmed enemies.I've heard ways to justify a space-battleship-yamato with huge railgun & fighter, if everyone is too afraid of debris to inflict heavy damage.
>>65026483I should have clarified, I'm not space fighter anon, I'm space battleship anon
>>64971918how would space colonies be entrenched and fortified?
>>64971918Ball
>>64995374Schlock schlock schlock schlock schlock!
>>65003532you mean a starfury?
>>65031362Starfury is pretty good but i'd take part of the Gunstar because it's two person system and landing.Newtonian mechanics need to be properly understood for a fighter with zero turn circle that can spin on itself and take off with thrust not just spin, something like a tie-fighter but with thrust pods.
>>65026875Ah that explain why you didn't write much.Good luck again then.>>65029899>how would space colonies be entrenched and fortified?We have to start with the assumption no one want to destroy them but capture them because they are pathetically fragile.Second problem is that unless they planned from the start to hide all critical system out of reach, you could take over simply by threatening to cut their power supply.From there it depends if the defending colony is entirely committed to defense, or if it's more a bunch of resistant inside a vast colony trying to fight against an attacker who may also not have enough troops.One thing for certain: You'll want to control all airlock.
