everytime scifi tries war in space navigation is basicaly 1700 but SPACE with sometimes you got whats basicaly ammounts to straits to move from system to system and war is basicaly just ww2 naval battles but IN SPACE.nobody ever tries to play with the 3dimensional layout they find themself in much less with stuff like orbits .
Sengoku but space
space weapons thread? space weapons thread.question: is there any point to armour in space? seems like any projectile would be going at near-relativistic speeds which is impossible to stop, right?>>65243366in what way?
Strategically if you can control whole quadrants of a spiral galaxy you dont need to worry about up or down much.
>>65243362you clearly haven't read much sci fi
>>65243370>is there any point to armour in spaceitll depend on what capabilities your tech level will allow you to have.there is no reason to have badly structured frame that could collapse on itself, and having damage control system and backups is a given.now say the enemy strategy is to try and blind your sensors with a laser, there are certain materials that block only a speicifc wave length of light but let the rest pass through(basicaly like shades), maybe the enemy has a railgun, you might structure your ship in a way an entire section of the ship doesnt simply explode due to a single hit, we also dont have to deal with atmosphere and while you still require energy to move there isnt as much constraint so you could put all your armor in a single section and simply point it toward the threat.
>>65243470>itll depend on what capabilities your tech level will allow you to haveI mean, even with current tech, just shooting the space equivalent of a Tomahawk missile from a satellite in orbit at another satellite in orbit but going the other way is going to produce hypersonic collisions as if the target and missile both are entirely made out of TNT
>>65243370>near relativisticNo, not really. Accelerating anything to a fraction of C requires a fuckton of power, and if you have that much energy on tap you've got engines capable of moving most things up to a good sized asteroid. Mass is also a function of energy so the ability to send a nail at 0.3c is meaningless if it hits a plate several orders of magnitude heavier.>armor in spaceReally the only limit is your ability to put mass in orbit. Everything after that is control of inertia, but in an environment with such low K it's harder to stop than to get moving.
>>65243586>the ability to send a nail at 0.3c is meaningless if it hits a plate several orders of magnitude heavieryeah but with that tech you could also easily send a projectile that can shatter million-ton asteroids into fragmentsit's a world of eggshells bristling with hammers
>>65243362things that piss me off in scifi space combat>1. universe where a single ship can depopulate an entire planet in minutesdo they have permanent ships on patrol and orbital defense systems in place to defend important planets? no2. no SOSUS like ring of sensors around their borders or near critical areasthen they're surprised when they end up getting ambushed by the enemy in their own territory 3. no automated ships/drones and no ramming. send automated ships or drones to weaken the enemy before sending in your crewed vessels. Force = Mass times Acceleration. Take some shitass 100,000 freighter and ram the enemy at near light speed4. no mines or loitering munitions. deploy missiles that float around using passive sensors at hotspots that then activate and attack enemy vessels that come near5. the need for major planetary combatonce you control orbit, you've won. you can bombard the enemy with impunity. if they try to concentrate ground forces, they just make a juicy target. so they need to split up which makes it easy to defeat in detail with your own ground forces
>>65243641>The Borg episode in TNG where Earth's defense is three (3) shitty shuttle craft that got destroyed in literally one (1) second:/
>>65243652The defense budget was gutted to fund lesbian prayer circles in Romulan Space.
>>65243641>once you control orbit, you've won. you can bombard the enemy with impunity.NOT SO FAST!
>>65243674Fair point. It would make sense to have a lot of planet based weaponry to hit enemy ships in orbit. I guess planets would be like ye olde castles making it a slow and painful process for the besiegers to take and trying to hold out until relief forces can drive away the attackers
>>65243613>to move 1kg to .3c you need about 4.5x10^15 j>to do that you need about 6 TW>every order of magnitude of mass increases power required by a corresponding order of magnitude>accelerating a 10000kg mass requires something akin to a brown dwarfSo not quite stellar fusion levels of power. If we're that far advanced in power generation we're reshaping solar systems, not lobbing railgun shells at each other. I mean yeah, you could go "lol have some RKV" but why, when you can just hop over a few lightyears and build your own little paradise?
>>65243641If a spaceship can be strong enough to threaten a planet then you better bet the planet is going to be strong enough to vaporize the ship kek.The only disadvantage having a weapon on a planet vs the same weapon but on a ship is that the planet has to fire against its own gravity, but most of the times when planetkillers are depicted the universe is at laser tech, and there is no way a ship can bave a bigger laser than a planet. The only way ships can pose serious danger to planets is if somehow they have space travel yet weapons tech never makes it past the day where missiles are king and anti-missile is economically unviable. Up until self propelled missiles, sea vessels would get anihilated by shore batteries unless it's something like dday where you have feet on the ground to take them out, and once (if) rockets/missiles ever get surpassed, things will go back to that.
>>65243687>Fair point. It would make sense to have a lot of planet based weaponry to hit enemy ships in orbitit wouldn't. Spaceships have an enormous advantage over planets since one can move and the other can't
>>65243362We literally see Kirk use this to win in Wrath of Khan.
>>65243773A planet can accommodate far more weapons systems than and ship. Those systems can be far larger than ship-borne systems and should be able to outrange ship-borne systems
>>65243790says who? it's easier to build megastructures in space and your projectile doesn't have to breach a mile of atmosphere while fighting gravity.
I can't remember the name of the series but combat was like Bushido Blade where a lot of shit amounted to very quick fights. Pages of math like Asimov's Foundation had astrogation chapters. It wasn't fun.
>>65243804>says who?The distinct lack of planet sized spacecraft
>>65243804I prefer to not be in space, there's gay niggers there.
>>65243773>it wouldn't. Spaceships have an enormous advantage over planets since one can move and the other can'tplanet borne weapons can be literally everywhere, hidden, and of variable mass and purpose. It would be more accurate to say that the only defense spaceships have against planets is their mobility.
>>65243860weapon speed... planets lose escape velocity and aliens gain it
>>65243362Yes, sci Fi always collapses and gives way to Fantasy and that is a GOOD THING
>>65244801Ever play "Star Fleet Battles" lol?
>>65243641>the need for major planetary combat>once you control orbit, you've won. you can bombard the enemy with impunity.You run into precisely the same problem USA had in Afghanistan and Iran.
>>65243773>>65243687>>65243790It's basically the same problem as with naval ships vs forts with cannons
