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 decisionPart 1: >>64971918
>>65039566All existing spaceplane concepts were for tourism or launching payloads to orbit, none would be good for combat roles.Honestly just take inspiration from the classics, Aliens drop ship is one of the best.Watch Spacedock as well, great discussion of sci-fi designs.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaJnte2A7A8
https://youtu.be/_c9W-icdTmg
>>65039566Something with conventional engines which switch to rocket engines for getting into orbit, and then switch to thrusters
>>65039566You're the author, this is your creative decision. You get to make the choice, and you should do so in a way that supports the story you are trying to tell.The idea that you would outsource this to other people is silly. The fact that you're doing so without even bothering to explain what story you're trying to tell is sad and disappointing. How are we supposed to give you meaningful input without knowing what you're going for?
>>65039566None. There are no practical space planes, it's a concept that doesn't make any sense, and particularly makes no sense for military usage. If you want to do it for rule of cool but still keep self consistency I think your best bets are:1. Super high atmospheric, not space. Figure out some reason to have stuff that can push into the 80-140k feet range but also operate lower, which gets you a lot of the coolness of space but you still have working fluid and a strong need/use for aerodynamics.2. Magic drives, aka the Macross solution. "No practical space planes" applies to any known or foreseeable future drives, but if you add in one bit of super tech/magic in any of the normal ways (in Macross it was "we found alien tech but could only manage to understand/adapt certain bits very slowly) as your sole departure, then you can build a whole system around that logically using all our normal tech and physics otherwise. This is probably the most "organic" approach, you can do a lot of cool stuff but in a way that's internally self-consistent. Like, if the US and USSR in 1960s did discover an alien wreck that let us make mini matter conversion drives, but it's a bunch of blackboxes that humans will take another 100 years to figure out the physics of and thus we can't just use that to change or make anything else, now you've got where we have this aerospace quantum leap in propulsion but we still have ancient computers and materials and such otherwise. Humans have to be key players, no drones or anything, and no particularly exotic weapons otherwise either (you can make missiles go way further more easily of course but it doesn't change their payload or give you magic energy beam guns or anything, though you could envision US and USSR agreeing to change form nuclear deterrence to R-bombs instead maybe down the road).That also gives you a convenient way to tweak other variables "organically" to drive your universe or restrict it as you desire.
>>65039566Rather than pick and choose, look at all of them, read about all of them, analyze them, make logical conclusions and make deductions, then make your own design that at very least on surface seems plausible and as you said it yourself science fiction rather than science fact / hard science universe.Here is a hint, for now all rockets at most that use liquid fuel rocket engines are bipropellant, look into Soviet Union that was developing tripropellant rocket engine until dissolution of USSR.
I like the Idea of a lifting body SSTO, NASA aparently, has renewed their interest. Unrelated but cool.https://youtu.be/evodPpqb9H4
>>65039754>That also gives you a convenient way to tweak other variables "organically" to drive your universe or restrict it as you desire.Like, you could make manufacturing the drives easy with common materials and fuels and the tech spreads, so that they're everywhere and even randos can potentially get in on the game. This would favor a more cowboy/privateer setting. Or you could say that making small ones are easy but it gets exponentially harder to scale up so only the US and Soviets have huge ones and capital ships for a hybrid.Or instead, you could make materials, fuel, or the tech more restricted (or all of them), you have three basic variables here to play with. You could say that making them requires something like osmium, which is super rare, or that the only fuel they work well with is helium-3 or something like that, which maybe drives a space race/contest to try to get it from the Moon or even Jupiter. Or that they have to be made by cornucopia machines or self-made copies, and that really restricts who has access and could add a big espionage/black ops angle instead or in addition. Or whatever
>>650397021. Thrusters>>65039702>The ExpenseI’ve been thinking along similar lines, but I’m aiming for something a bit more sophisticated than the usual RCS thrusters. Here’s the setup I’ve been considering:>Primary'sReaction Control System (RCS)Electric Propulsion System (EPS)>Back-UpSolid Rocket Motor (SRM)This creates a three-layer system, combining short-burst RCS for maneuvering, long-duration EPS for efficient thrust, and a single-use SRM as an emergency backup.
>>65039754A joke to you i am?
>>65039804yes, also not a spaceplane
>>65039804>A joke to you i am?Yes. Call back when you get to orbit at all, and then with a significant cargo at a price/kg and cadence competitive with at least Falcon 9, while remembering that Starship, New Glenn, Neutron and more are coming down the pipe rapidly and then will keep improving.
>>65039799What about larger ships, thrusters are good for course correction but what about when speed is required for a larger ship even in the expanse larger ships just can't perform a muit vector course adjustment at speed.
>Blue Gemini, Salyut /Almaz>Dyna Soar, MiG-105
>>65039804Anon, can you not read? That literally falls into the first point, it's an air breathing engine.
>>65039566all spaceplanes are kinda retarded the only reason any were made was so the US airfrorce can perform orbital equipment experiments that can be brought back to earth (x37) or steal enemy space assets (shuttle)the only ones that sort of make sense are the fully reusable ones that are basically starship in a runway-landing form. i could totally see those being the meta if vertical falcon9 style landing never worked.BAC Mustardhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-5rzzOZW1Erelies on fuel cross-feed so all engines run off the fuel from one of the stages, when that stage is dropped and the 2 remaining engines run off the other stage until it is dropped. after each staging the remaining stages are at ~100% fuel.Energia II Uraganhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6GG8KHDjZkversion of the energia where the boosters and main stage all land back on earth. i dont think any part of it was built but a different version of the energia boosters was about to be tested when the soviet union started falling and shit was defunded. the type they were about to test just used pacachutes and solid fuel rockets to soft-land in the kazakh tundra to be airlifted by heavy helicopter back to baikonur but they intended later concepts of it to have folding wings and glide back to base
>>65039566I'm normalizing the mass production of 1kt nuclear fusion warheads for widespread Orion drive use. Works on the Moon, works on Mars, works on Venus, works everywhere in-between. Who cares about radiation in the long run as long as you're only dealing with fusion isotope byproducts, we won't be intensively colonizing them for centuries. This way you only need a non-nuclear engine on Earth and when you're too close to someone else to set off a nuke in space (~60km if you're being polite about radiation). In either case some kind of liquid fuel rocket propulsion is acceptable. Might as well just be in a bolt-on pod you dock with in orbit. Make the whole thing vaguely aerodynamic and as large as you can get away with without tearing itself apart. Voila; cargo up or down, anywhere in the solar system, and it's rad as fuck.
>>65039799That's a good start but how do you move throughout intrasolar and exosolar? As thrusters aren't for long term travel
>>65039566none of them are good for combat. You're thinking too small. Spaceplanes can deliver a ton of mass to orbit. That's your warshiphttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVYbbWAd2WA
>>650397992. Primary Engine and Auxiliary Engines>>65042933That’s a problem I’ve been considering for some time, giving a great deal of thought to the primary power plant, the auxiliary systems, and the means of propulsion that would best take advantage of them.>Primary EngineDirect Fusion Drive (DFD)>Auxiliary EngineNuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application (NERVA)>Back-UpSolid Rocket Motor (SRM)
>>65041833why 1kt? You could probably go lower with shaped charges
>>65039566Why have a spaceplane? They're not practical for orbital operations in any setting where you can mount missiles on satellites, stations, or larger ships. >I am open to including the rule of cool as a factor in the decisionAh, I see. OK then. You'll still need the following if you want it to feel even vaguely realistic>Low cost of ground to orbit launch, either an electromagnetic launch ramp (ridiculously long so the acceleration doesn't liquify the crew, or something handwavium powered)>Anti-satellite/station mission profile, or used as a 'low cost' orbital defence option, justify this by limiting the human crews time in zero g (the human body doesn't like being in those conditions, and spaceplanes plus low cost of launch let you have significant orbital capability without fucking up astronauts bodies with long tours in orbit)>Go with missiles as a primary weapon, with a laser as APS, remember that missiles can coast pretty much indefinitely in vacuum so range = yes (as long as you have the time for them to make the trip)>Play a lot of KSP to get at least some idea of how orbital flight differs from atmospheric flight>Read up on real world projects like the Aurora Spaceplane and DARPA's XSP project
I always thought the Starship Troopers skycrane-like design was neat.It can drop the entire crew container like a little forward shelter, or you can swap it for different containers/modules to carry vehicles or weapons.The front-facing ramps also give it a Higgins boat vibe.
>>650433183. Primary Powerplant and Auxiliary Powerplant>>65042933>>65043318Regarding powerplants, I’ve been considering the following the vessels would utilize a fusion powerplant and Direct Fusion Drive (DFD) as its primary energy and propulsion suite. For redundancy, an independent fission plant serves as a cold-standby auxiliary, capable of powering the ship's systems and a secondary Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR) for high-thrust maneuvers should the primary fusion system fail.>Primary ReactorTokamakOr.Field-reversed configuration (FRC)>Auxiliary ReactorLiquid Metal Fast Reactors (LMFR)>Back-UpChemical Based Fuel System
>>65043351my problem with the ST movie landers is that the boxy troop compartment is so fucking lazy (we won't go into how it clearly has TARDIS tech when comparing exterior and interior shots)the CH53 and MH47 are fine examples of nearly the same general design principle as the ST dropships, i.e. a relatively small plane-like section with a glorified box of a compartment, but the addition of just a few rounded edges (in reality the flotation kit and fuel tanks) makes it look far more pleasingTL;DR it would not have fucking killed the ST designers to round off those edges just a teensy bitlike the Rogue One UT-60D for example
>>65043351I agree with you. I like the idea of using extendable cranes to load and dock ships, similar to a steam catapult for launches.An added benefit is that you could use it like a Thunderbird 2 system, where troops load directly onto a 'tram' that attaches to the dropship and is then craned out
>>65043381>I like the idea of using extendable cranes to load and dock shipsanon meant Skycrane, not sky crane
>>65039566It entirely depends on how advanced the propulsion systems are and how hard sci-fi you want it to be + what the mission even is? Are we talking some kind of ground invasion from space? Pure space to space combat? Is it an all out war where both sides don't care how many O'Neill cylinders get ripped into pieces or are there laws in place?
>>65039566For any serious space program where you have massive infrastructure already off world; the most likely means of getting off Earth would be SSTO's being launched from maglev mass drivers off of mountains. With exit velocities of around mach 3 (1,000 m/s) at 3km altitude would reduce the total delta-v requirements down to around 8km/s. These would be designed for rapid reuse but they would still be spaceplanes i.e. costing hundreds of millions/spaceplane and fragile. Most likely still using LH2/LOX and even then you're probably only getting 10-20 metric tons just to Low Earth Orbit (LEO). Using these for any sort of combat role wouldn't happen. >FightersFighters would only exist in space to space combat and would serve in a similar role to being gunboats in space but with missiles. Launching from a carrier to deploy their weapons and then change orbits to get away from the enemy without having to expose larger spacecraft in the fleet to direct hostile engagement. "Dogfighting" would be the exception, not the rule. Most likely only ever happening if the enemy has fighters of their own and both orbits are going in the same direction and not at each other, if they were, it would be the most batshit missile joust ever. >BombersEssentially the same as fighters unless we're talking striking ground based targets from orbit. If you want something cool then you could have them have some powerful main rail gun that can shoot retrograde to deorbit the payload to strike targets on the ground but that's about it. >transportsReentry will always be a bitch barring space magic tier technology. Having Battletech style dropships that are just big reentry vehicles used as a scifi version of an LCU landing craft. For air assets designed for use in atmosphere you're better off going Halo style and just having them sent via large dropship and then used like a regular helicopter.>reconnaissanceFully depends on air/space defense and EW capabilities of the setting.
>>65043370ICF fusion is most likely the only practical fusion drive you can realistically have. Especially something like the VISTA where you shoot a shape charged pellet that gets hit by lasers that once going fusion gets directed back at a magnetic nozzle. If you're willing to do it, then if the setting has limited antimatter production then instead of lasers, you can just shoot a microgram worth of antimatter at the pellet to get it to go critical. Having massive reactors in the spacecraft not only demand insane power levels with a lot of capacitors but also would require a ridiculous amount of radiators to keep the ship from vaporizing itself. For fusion ships, you're talking TW's levels of waste heat that need to be radiated away.
>>650433704. Weapons and Armament>>65043370When it comes to weapons and armour, this has been a persistent challenge for me. It stems from the gap between what I’d like to implement and how to effectively defend against it, largely due to my fundamental lack of understanding of belt armour schemes and weapon layouts.Without going into detail, I'll simplify for the sake of not posting a manuscript worth of detail.>Primary Weapons A. Very High Power (Specialize)Free-Electron Lasers (FEL)B. High Power (Primary)Fiber LasersChemical Gas Lasers (Niche)C. Medium to High Power (Secondary)Solid-State LasersGas Lasers (Niche)D. Low to Medium PowerSolid-State and Fiber Lasers>Secondary WeaponsA. High-Impact OrdnanceTorpedoes (Externally Mounted)B. Guided ProjectilesMissilesLaser-Guided Rockets>Auxiliary WeaponsA. Rapid-Fire SystemsAutocannonsB. Heavy SupportNaval Artillery Pieces
>>65043450Could you elaborate? I’ve seen laser fusion depicted in sci-fi before, for example in DS9 and The Expanse. For a setting that relies heavily on lasers, this is useful to me, as it suggests there could be non-naval applications as well.. >>65043456
>>65043471>shoot fuel pellet via coilgun out the back>battery of lasers hit the pellet to cause it to implode>pellet has a liner and is shape charged so that it beams back at the spacecraft with particles that can be manipulated with magnetism>magnetic nozzle works like a regular rocket nozzle by pushing back against the charged particles thus creating thrust>shoot pellets at a rate of 10hz to 100hz+ for continuous thrust This is typical of ICF fusion (inertial confinement fusion). There are other ideas like having microfission-fusion pellets where a tiny amount of subcritical fissile material gets hit with lasers that then kickstarts the fusion making it easier to do but with less performance. And then of course more advanced stuff like shooting a microgram of antimatter at the pellet instead of massive lasers to do it.
>>65043555>>65043450>For fusion ships, you're talking TW's levels of waste heat that need to be radiated awayisn't most of that going to be consumed by propulsion and maybe weapons fire?
>>65043583Something like a chemical rocket is what is considered to be an "open-cycle" rocket, that is to say, there is enough propellant being shot out the rocket that the heat goes out with it. For something like having a nuclear reactor on your spacecraft. It's going to generate a lot of waste heat. Everything will produce waste heat. That heat has to be removed, and the only way you can do that in space is by having radiators. >consumed by propulsionICF has the least amount of waste heat compared to other forms of fusion but you're still generating heat from all of the systems involved plus the plasma that will still hit the back end of the ship which will require a radiator, but nothing like having a massive reactor inside the ship.>weapons fireFiring weapons will generate heat. The biggest problem with any ship, especially a ship generating a lot of power like a nuclear one is going to be heat management. Even the space shuttle when just floating around in space had the payload bay doors open because the doors had radiators on the inside of them. tl;dr space is hard.
>>65043456Here's my thoughts on Armour, It's not exactly complete.Armor Philosophy OverviewThe ship uses an All-or-Nothing Armor Scheme, focusing protection on critical areas such as magazines, machinery spaces, and the command center. Secondary systems have moderate armor, while non-essential areas are lightly protected. Armor thickness is adjusted according to the importance of each system to maximize survivability while keeping mass low.Armor Types1. Variable ArmorA thick, adjustable protective layer surrounds the ship’s most vital systems. Its thickness changes depending on the criticality of the components beneath, forming a protective shell around engines, power systems, and magazines. This armor provides primary defense against torpedoes, missiles, and guided rockets.2. Angled ArmorSloped or faceted surfaces increase effective thickness and improve the chances of deflecting incoming fire. It is designed to disperse energy from medium- to high-power lasers, autocannons, and naval artillery.3. Sacrificial ArmorA thin outer layer absorbs and dissipates heat from laser strikes. It vaporizes or ablates when hit, carrying energy away before it reaches critical systems. This armor is particularly effective against free-electron, fiber, chemical gas, and solid-state lasers.4. Hull StructureThe hull provides structural integrity and serves as a secondary line of defense. It maintains balanced protection against both energy and kinetic threats while supporting overall ship strength.Materials and ConstructionCore Materials: High-tensile steel and titanium alloy give the hull strength and resistance to impacts and internal explosions.Surface Layers: Ceramic or composite materials protect against lasers and heat.Layering Techniques: Air gaps or Whipple-style layers fragment high-velocity projectiles and reduce penetration.>>65043583I'd be using radiators and heatpumps to get rid of heat, it's a problem for spacecraft and it isn't star trek.
>>65039566A craft that operates efficiently in both air and space is like a flying submarine.A sub has to endure extreme pressures, which makes it heavy. An aircraft has to defeat gravity, which makes it light. Heavy and light don't go together. Even with advanced materials you'd produce a sub that can't go very deep, and a plane that doesn't fly very well.Anything built to operate in atmosphere would contain heat shielding and features that add weight in space requiring more thrust to maneuver.It would get its ass kicked by a purpose-built space weapon.The engineering challenges are so different and difficult nobody would waste their time building something that did both.
>>65039804That's essentially a missile that has a destination before launch and no return capability.
A near-future swarm of ultra-lightweight autonomous orbital drones, designed for mass production. Each unit has a minimal, skeletal structure—more like a spindly starburst or radial framework than a solid craft. No hull plating, no bulk—just thin struts radiating outward from a small central core.The central core is compact and functional, housing basic electronics, with visible antenna elements extending outward. Long, narrow solar panels are integrated into some of the arms, giving the structure an asymmetrical but balanced look.Each drone bristles with thin rod-like appendages—some are kinetic impact rods, others are micro-thrusters. The result is a chaotic but intentional star-shaped silhouette, like a mechanical sea urchin or metallic wisp.The swarm fills the scene in low Earth orbit, loosely distributed but clearly coordinated. Some units are releasing slender metallic rods that drift silently along precise trajectories. Others are firing tiny, almost imperceptible thruster bursts, subtly reorienting themselves.The drones feel fragile, disposable, and numerous—no single unit looks important. Their power comes from scale and coordination, not individual strength.Lighting is stark and realistic: harsh sunlight glints off thin metallic struts while much of each structure falls into deep shadow. Earth’s curvature looms below, soft and massive in contrast to the delicate swarm.The overall tone is eerie and quiet—no explosions, no glow effects, no cinematic exaggeration. Just thin, almost invisible machines executing precise, inevitable motion.Style: ultra-realistic, grounded hard sci-fi. Emphasize minimalism, fragility, and mass-produced design. Avoid bulky spacecraft aesthetics—these should look closer to orbital debris with purpose.
>>65039684The whole concept of a space plane originates from the military X program"Tourism" wasn't exactly the first application in their mind.
>>65043407Skyhook. Grab the aircraft and then land it.If it's stupid and it works...
>>65043753>Grab the aircraft and then land it.>If it's stupid and it workswell it doesn't work, but what actually works is the reverse, which is only slightly less "stupid" if you think about itfor the past sixty years navies have been using the opposite method; instead of the ship grabbing the helicopter with a crane, the helicopter "grabs" the ship by throwing down a cable, which is then winched in.
>>65043782Indeed, the RNanons will attest to the stupid sea states it works in.
>>65043729>StyleAppallingNow give me a recipe for kedgeree
>>65043729Oh, Wow. What about the human story.
>>65043659>>65043456>>65043370>>65043318>>65039799For any type of large scale ship your going to need X Y Z primary and thrusters otherwise your falling into the trap of thruster bank and go foward fast but can't turn.Pillar of Autum falls for this trap.
>>65039566I would suggest copying or taking inspiration from the ship designs in Elite Dangerous game as they have multirole (space & atmosphere) capabilities with rather well thought out and realistic designs.
>>65043373I agree the aesthetics are a bit lacking, but I like the general concept.
>>65044676>but I like the general conceptlots of people agree with thatwhen it's done right
>>65044676this thing was pretty cool though
>>65044690Yea they did a great job on those models. The scene where it gets split in half is absolutely gorgeous.
This thread again...You'd think you had everything the last time.>>65039566>I am open to including the rule of cool as a factor in the decisionWe can't answer your question without knowing your setting and how unrealistic the technology is.It's hard to even consider ANY "military spaceplane" with real science, and you want to make a whole fleet of them.>fighters, bombers,If you can make an airplane, you can make a cheaper missile.At most the airplane is just a glorified first stage to put the hypersonic missile in motion, and it might as well be a drone.And futuristic enemies defense will likely involve LASER so you wouldn't survive a flyby.>transports,At best you are talking of a generic launch-vehicle, supposedly more flexible than a rocket, with the ability to land HEAVY cargo by gliding.The problem is that it's ridiculously hard to make these single-stage to orbit. You'd need at least Skylon cryogenic scramjet.Assuming the fuel can be obtained where you use them.>reconnaissanceRecon aircraft have long disappeared and even drone wouldn't survive defense.The only reason space satellite are not being shot down is because triggering a Kessler effect is consider similar to firing a nuke.>helicoptersPlus don't just list whatever and make us do your job
>>65043373Some helicopters are good, some are legendary.
>>65044843See >>65044120
You reminded me of this ridiculous "Aldebaran" concept.A ridiculously powerful nuclear engine taking off in a "sea dragon" way, but expected to land in a single piece on the sea.https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/surfaceorbit.php#id--Aldebaran
>>65044853Bring it on.
>>65044853Did you misquote?I posted the Skylon concept, of course it would have RCS. Realistic RCS.>>65044120>For any type of large scale ship your going to need X Y Z primary and thrusters otherwise your falling into the trap of thruster bank and go foward fast but can't turn.>gundbuster spaceshipYou do realize that in the vacuum of space REAL SPACESHIP only need to vector the thrusters, rotating the ship 360° around, then burn in any direction you need?Any mass you waste is mass you cannot have in propellant, reducing your deltaV budget, and thus your range.Lastly, given how dangerous nuclear thrusters are, you don't want them pointed carelessly in every direction, if the reactor is too dangerous to even have the ship dock itself, you'd not need extra thrusters and rather use specialized tugs or docking robot-arms.That said, I'm a proponent of the paper-armor balloon spaceship designed to move the thrusters anywhere it needs inside itself.
>>65044738the little fires are pretty goodand there's a guy tumbling out in to space in the middle(I suspect MPAA ratings stop movies from showing more than a handful of bodies sucked out in space, otherwise they would have put in dozens of them)
>>65044899>>65044875You asked about technology in OP setting, I provided a reply with all the links to his current developmental lore.
