Hard scifi spacecraft from the near or distant future.no such thing as magic gravity plating,faster than light engines or teleporters.
From avatar
From the expanse
>>23633563I kind of having a problem with this one...i thought they use the spin in the drum to create artifical gravity but if the accelate this cant be the case.but the ship seems to be designed for that.am i wrong?
This one got visible radiators
Ryvius is made of this
wish we had finished Orion, we'd be living in a true space agehttps://youtu.be/fXeUkrlxQ98?si=3zxS0L7-8xBUCSZM>>23633544what is this from? good design and love dazzle camo>>23633550they ships from avatar deserve a lot of credit, really like how they use lasers for the earth half of each trip
>>23633626my bad, forgot to take the stupid analytics tag off the linkproper link is https://youtu.be/fXeUkrlxQ98
Most realistic spaceship everForget slugging nukes at relativistic speedREAL space warfare will be about glorified patrol ship delivering troops armed only with weapons made to disable enemies without creating the slightest debris, endanger the lunar space elevator or Earth's orbital rings.
>>23633626They're from Lunar War
>>23633544Can't have this thread without Project Orion mention>Propelled by nuclear explosions>Naval Guns, CIWS, Missiles>Carrier capability (X-20 Dyna-Soar sorties?)>Nuclear bombardment capabilityoh yeah and we can't forget the Casaba-Howitzer aka zero-g shaped charge aka NUCLEAR SPACE PLASMA BEAM CANNONall real btw just killed by the end of the cold war/space arms treaties/optics
>>23633626>>23633629Guess I'm bad at reading threads, still gives an excuse to post more pics
>>23633566It's for very long travel, so you spin while you're coasting.
>>23633842oh it's the L5 guythanks>>23634089>>23634090read "footfall" if you haven't already, fellow Orion knower
Dropping some reccs. Just watched Mighty Space Miners on a whim. 1994 OVA by Triangle Staff (Venus Wars, Serial Experiments Lain, Macross Plus), the director of 08th MS Team, and the lead animator for Stardust Memory, 08th MS Team, and Cowboy Bebop. It's 2 episodes. Hard sci-fi about an accident on a mining colony. Damn shame it's only 2 eps and an unfinished story. It's got some gorgeous animation. Seems lesser known. Also, Memories (1995), directed by Ootomo Katsuhiro (Akira), is a feature length film consisting of 3 short films. The first of which is a hard sci-fi piece about salvagers encountering a derelict. Well, semi-hard sci-fi. A bit of a ghost story. The Orbital Children (2022), directed by Iso Mitsuo (animator on Memories, Evangelion, Ghost in the Shell (1995), director for Dennou Coil), with Yoshida Ken'ichi (character design Eureka 7, Gundam G no Reconguista), is hard sci-fi about a disaster on a hotel in space. Carries some interesting ideas about how fragile life is in space, and questions whether life in space is really viable.
Always was a fan of the USS George W Bush from Iron Sky. Came in at the end of an otherwise satirical comedy with a surprisingly well designed space battleship we could probobly build today.
>>23634178thanks for mighty space miners, that wasn't on my radargood taste with the others
>>23633566It's a Mormon generation ship, meant to take hundreds of years to reach.... I want to say Proxima Centauri.
>>23634089for me its the nuclear salt-water rocket, why settle for pulse nuclear detonations when you can have a continuous one?
>>23634633funnier when the nuclear rockets are for atmospheric use
>>23633566It's built to be a generation ship, it's not expected to always be either accelerating or breaking.
>>23634089>Project Orion>>23634090OP asked for realistic spacecraft.Not an unpractical and unfeasible meme-ship that only look too cool to be judged objectively. It's not even good as "instant warship".The only thing the design is (supposed) to be good is surface-launch, which:- is the most difficult design possible, requiring the strongest acceleration, perfect timing, position and alignment of the nuclear-pellets,- is too damn dangerous to ever try, it has no redundancy, no safety, a single part fail and it crash with a full load of nuclear pellet built cheaply, unarmored, light,- No country would ever accept a launch trajectory that might end up with it crashing on them,- is not reusable, again "surface launch" is the only reason this idea was ever considered.When it comes to orbit-to-orbit travel, it is inferior to every other nuclear propulsion.- it can't fire its engine around anything of importance unless you have a focusing apparatus inferior to other nuclear-propulsions,- it can barely throttle and it would be most dangerous to do so where it is useful to do so,- it cannot accommodate multiple thrusters or vector thrust to turn,- it can't use in-situ source of fuel/propellant, only (still) fancy hard-to-produce nuclear pellets. It can't use hydrogen from an asteroid base or so,- its efficiency is inferior to many other nuclear propulsions, which you'll prefer the moment you can assemble anything in orbit,- its "shield" isn't actually a shield but a fragile propulsion-plate that should never absorb more than a pulse of diffuse particles,- if the shock absorber grip, you basically nuked yourself, the pellets also need failsafe trigger system,>tl;drIt's not useful to launch from the surface and you have no reason to built one in orbit once you can.
>>23634089I know this thread was likely an elaborate LARP by /x/ schizos but every day I pray that it's real and would sell my left testicle to the military if we're actually going to have IRL Yamato Comet Empire but with Orion battleshipshttps://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/41387609
>>23634860Sounds like BS to me. For starters the comet isn't going to crash into Earth, and there's no way in hell they wouldn't give the contract to one of his owners (cough cough SpaceX) instead >all this alien shitcome on. The information sharing stopped because of the wars, and Russia can't even give their soldiers tanks, you think they're developing interplanetary rockets? And let's not even get started on the Jerusalem nonsense
>>23634860nothing ever happens.
>>23633626I got the ships from twitter.i cant remember the name but i send another one i saved.and yeah avatar beside the cryopod thing is a really solid depiction.
>>23633629The orion drive is really interesting but i am kind of nervous about the infrastructure that is needed to power a military or civilian fleet and the bureaucracy behind it. One nuke misplaced or stolen may be just a rounding error.
>>23634655Ah thanks that make more sense.i thought the want to be as close to realistically speed as possible
>>23634956they cancelled it because they thought the russians would balk at the nuclear ramp-up, toocrying shame because they would've been able to lift massive payloads and basically open up space travel
>>23634694Good arguments
>>23634694yeah man just glaze over the fact that launch payload size is one of the biggest hurdles to space travel and orions would let you build those orbital shipyards that already exist in your argument
Artificial gravity aside, all of the Seikai ships are built on good principles, same with the battleships in LoGH for the same reason. AM annihilation for thrust is a little fanciful but is possible and both justify how you are making the fuel (AM is a battery basically) through solar power.If you meant "near term Children of a Dead Earth inspired" rather than realistic though I guess it doesn't fit.
>>23634964They do, but even with the magically efficient engines they still have limited propellant and it's a lot of mass to get up to speed (and back down).
>>23635318Do LOGH battleships have artificial gravity or is their "floor" towards the engines?
>>23635391Iirc they also do artificial gravity, their ships also use it for propulsion too (I think, considering how they take off from any gravity well). It's done mostly for looks (which is why the consequences of the technology are given zero thought). Still, charged particle beams and magnetic deflection and massive industry are all good and realism oriented.
>>23634993>orions would let you build those orbital shipyardsA costly, non-reusable, dangerous nuclear rocket, that can't be made reliable over multiple use, betting everything on one/few costly launches......would help assemble, supply, service, upgrade orbital shipyard(s) meant specifically to NOT have to launch everything in one launch?You are the one glazing over more important facts. Size is good yes, but no necessary and pointless if it's not sustainable.Even in the best cases you need regular shuttles as big as you can.Making a fully reusable superheavy methane/hydrogen rocket would already be more economically efficient and practical than Orion. A plan that wasn't on the table when the concept of Orion was imagined because we didn't believe in computers allowing landing methods that human aren't even capable of.However, I wonder if those could really be made able to recover cargo and land it smoothly, or if this would ask for spaceplane (if only because aerodynamic glide is better with heavy load).
>>23633544Realistic doesn't have to mean brutalistNow imagine a spaceship with a more Apple-like design language, possibly even unibody
>>23636324Personally I think he should be setting aside Orion and start talking about at least mini-mag Orion instead. Or nuclear lightbulb, we have concepts to make that work now without melting itself to slag (obviously untested) like looking more into electrostatic containment. Or how about infrastructure heavy options like a cog highway, or tethers? Or betting on shit like plasmadynes. I think even Medusa is a bit more palatable than Orion.At the end of the day, Orion has such dedicated fans because "it's easy" and because it looks like a spaceship (the spaceships their movies and comics promised them) which matters a lot when other concepts like I mentioned don't do that.
>>23636324No one fucking cares about those "reusable", "sustainable" and shit meme buzzwords, when a single one can lift several thousands of tons to orbit. Mass means everything in space. A single Orion launch could place an armed satellite constellation, a missile drone system, several manned combat stations and fleet of small, maneuverable crafts and a maintenance base for them, AT THE SAME TIME. >>23634969Nope. Proto-envirotards and competition from other projects killed it. Literally every other project and department hated it, as it would have meant their toys are instantly obsoleted by the Orion, so they acted in true office politics fashion to protect their little fiefdoms and schemed until they could sabotage it.
>>23634643Isn't this more or less how most Variable Fighters from Macross generate thrust in-atmosphere?
>>23636352>Proto-envirotards and competition from other projects killed it. Literally every other project and department hated it, as it would have meant their toys are instantly obsoletedyeah, fuck me this sounds entirely too believablewe really don't deserve to leave this planet>>23636324keep ignoring that we would already have heavy lift vehicles decades before your plan and they would enable massive orbital projectsyou can go "but but but" all day, doesn't change the fact they would've worked and we would be significantly further along in space development if we had gone forward with it
>>23636324It's convenient for your argument, but stop pretending these technologies are mutually exclusive.You can put an entire station in orbit with one launch, then supply and crew it with conventional shuttles or spaceplanes or anything else.>>23636349The advantage orion had over these was how early we could've started using it. It's a stepping stone, not a permanent solution.
>>23636475Okay, and nobody wanted to use it then. And now we have new technologies that make Orion even less palatable. Thinking it's cool is reasonable, harping on in a bitter tone about it is an unfortunate mental state. What's done is done.
>>23636475Retarded argument. To this day, put together from Sputnik-1 humanity has put less mass in orbit than a single Orion launch could. There is simply no alternative. The ISS took decades and several dozen launches to build with massive engineering hurdles to build around those constraints and its barely above 400 tons. An Orion could place an entire mobile factory in space. Another a fuel depot lasting for decades. Another a fully equipped laboratory and command center. Another an entire deep space telemetry and communications system with an entire fleet of hundreds of exploration drones carrying sub-drones and landers and orbiters able to leisurely explore every nook and cranny of the solar system. Another one could carry an entire assembled base to the Moon in one go. Another one to the Mars. Another one to the outer Solar System, like a base on the Ganymede or something. Another could carry an entire asteroid prospecting and mining facility.Less then a dozen Orion launches could have made humanity a spacefaring race.
>>23636443yesn't. They use "reaction engines", which I THINK is just another name for nuclear but don't quote me on that. But I'm pretty sure they don't shit out radioactive exhaust overt their colonies so the system must work differently
New Glenn>best case $1,510 / kg to orbit, worst case $3,330 / kg, TRL9, on track for $20 / kg to orbit in a decade, competes with a hypothetical space elevator on cost if not on throughputStarship>best case $100 / kg to orbit, worst case $5,000 / kg to orbit, TRL9, on track for $20 / kg to orbit in a decade, competes with a hypothetical space elevator on cost if not on throughputOrion>best case $300 / kg to orbit back when it was first being proposed, worst case ~$15,000 / kg to orbit, TRL4 at most
>>23636524In most Macross contexts it refers to fusion, so yeah, no radioactives vomitted over everything.
>>23636349>mini mag orionhttps://www.ans.org/news/article-1313/mini-mag-orion/Those nuclear pulse propulsion are already more credible, even if I think continuous drive is more likely and more controllable.>Or how about infrastructure heavy options like a cog highway, or tethersNot sure what you mean by the first.The tether option come in multiple variation and go all the way from "impractical" to "we wish but unfeasible".Personally, if we can fix stability issue I'd bet on the absolute end-game being orbital rings, not the soft-SF type, I'm talking of the kind where you accelerate the whole station on the ring-rail until it levitate fast enough to be static relative to the ground and able to use a crane.May sound far-fetched but that's actually more feasible than the space elevator concept.The elevator is mainstream because it's visually straightforward (pun unintended) and functionally easier to explain.>(the spaceships their movies and comics promised them)Meh, I think it's just smartass who think they've "outsmarted" everyone and found the solution "kept away from us by politic".I had not even read the post next to yours before he demonstrated it's more a politic statement to him than actual engineering.
>>23636352>No one fucking cares about those "reusable", "sustainable" and shit meme buzzwordsHe says, after the world have been rocked upside down by SpaceX making reusable 1st stage.You don't even understand the bullshit examples you are trying to impress with.To begin with the smallest "10m Orion" was already about as realistic as Musk "BFS" or "ITS" concept (the hypersize Starship). Not to bring up Musk claims he'll launch them as fast as airliners.So it would take forever, with many prototypes, to actually develop an Orion ship reliable enough to entrust with any payload of value. SpaceX can only afford quick, high-losses, testing because their rockets are relatively harmless.Economically, by the time you've rebuilt an Orion to launch the next payload, an equivalent-tech FLEET of reusable rocket would have put twice that mass with more flexibility and assembled and resupplied nuclear spaceship better than Orion.Militarily, the Orion don't even make sense anymore (if it made sense back then). It's a high-cost, high-risk, high-value target with no real versatility or use.At the times it was;"We'll be the first to instantly have a space-battleship destroying everything the commies launch, with turrets and space-fighters!"But modern technologies made it far easier to intercept/nuke anything in orbit from the ground.The only way to win a space-war is to be able to constantly resupply what you'd lose up there.And the main difficulty nowadays is to avoid making debris that will also destroy your own stuff.Orion wouldn't be a good "space-battleship", nor a good launch-system either, and it wouldn't be a good interplanetary vehicle either.
>>23636447Stop being contrarian a minute and read your own post.If you already had heavy-launch vehicles you have no more need for (a realistic) Orion.>>23636475You don't understand and operate with a double-standard that imagine Orion at its grossly-romanticized peak when "reusable launch system" at the same level of technology would be make Orion pointless.You'd assemble space-stations in orbit with less risk of losing it all,Free from the limitation of a high-acceleration, free to expand.Then you'd push the station into-position using a nuclear-tug more efficient and less dangerous for surrounding installation than the Orion was.It was not actually a good launch system, the only "+" in its favor of that was the "instant interplanetary ship" meme and it is not worth the trouble without an infrastructure capable of more than just refuelling its nuclear pellets.>It's a stepping stone, not a permanent solution.That argument only work under the wishful belief of it being "easy" and working flawlessly on the first launches,The real stepping stone would be a reusable and practical heavy launch system you can count on.Orion was and still is no more realistic than say this Douglas Rombus projecthttps://www.spaceflighthistories.com/post/rombus
>>23636647>Not sure what you mean by the first.This. Surprisingly good performance.
>>23636651>OMGZORZ LOOK AT THAT ROKKET OMG SO KEWL ITS REUSABLEIt would the the kind of trash made obsolete by Orion, so they schemed to cancel it.>was already about as realisticThe engineering feasibility project study was done. It was easily buildable by 60s tech.No amount of retarded buzzwords will matter. Fucking moron.
>>23636701You should come post in /sfg/ on /sci/ instead, your posts will be more appreciated there. /m/ just isn't intelligent enough.
>>23636712/sci/'s big on "OMGZORZ" type posts?
>>23636720You should go post about Orion there. /m/ just isn't intelligent enough.
>>23636672hilarious that you're calling others contrarian while scrounging for ways to spin everything as your position crumbles
>>23636675Never heard about this exact one (but I heard about gathering magnetic dust)https://toughsf.blogspot.com/2021/03/fusion-highways-in-space.htmlIMHO, it looks like an attempt to revive the Bussard ramjet. It's likely to work on the principle (shooting the propellant ahead) but logistically I think if you can do that you probably don't have much trouble just carrying the propellant with you.There's also electric/magnetic sailshttps://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#id--Sail--Electric_Sail
>>23636764>if you can do that you probably don't have much trouble just carrying the propellant with youThe benefit is not having to carry the propellant with you though, which improves your performance. Two identical drives, one rides the highway set up in advance, the other using onboard fuel, the former gets more out of the same mass of fuel and propellant used. I'm sure you get it.For magsails, plasmadynes/q-drive and dynamic soaring are cool as shit, because assuming they work close to as theorized you have unironic sailing in space, very romantic (and safe compared to other options). Don't confuse with with other plasma or light sails, not the same thing. Power is extracted from the flowing plasma and used to accelerate reaction mass stored aboard the vehicle, so upwind and downwind works just fine either way. It's a weird concept, but getting better than the speed of solar wind without needing massive hardware is very nice! Oh and you can combine it with other propulsion methods because staging still works even in the future and you should be doing it. Single stage is bad mmmmkay?
>>23636672>If you already had heavy-launch vehicles you have no more need for (a realistic) Orion.the launch vehicles -are- the orions, you imbecileplease go be an overconfident pseud somewhere else
>>23636816He is just burping up buzzwords like a corporate boardroom. "reusable" is meaningless when you can either partially reuse piddly little rockets carrying a few tons each, vs sending 7000 tons to space a pop. Not to mention, simple scaling on mass and cost would make an Orion inevitably cheaper in weight-to-orbit
Also, this is the absolute crux of everything, for in order to there be war in space, there must be something worth defending and something worth contesting. For that, something must exist in space and for that you need some sort of large-scale infrastructure, currently only feasible by Orions. Like, I could totally the at some point during the 21st century, some major powers starting to put colonies that go beyond the usual "arctic research station" tier and and start bringing in factories, hydroponics, heavy machinery, etc. obviously preparing for large-scale settlement and other nations wanting to keep tabs on them and put some gentle pressure on them until treaties and agreements are worked out. Not the "go down there and kill everyone" tier, just a a network of communication and surveillance satellites, deep space stations, fuel and repair depots orbiting Mars or the Moon etc. Basically just infrastructure, hardened and with potential for dual use. Then the slow "arms race" begin without a single weapon system ever getting equipped. Russia develops a ship with oversized engines that could reach Mars really, really fast and just keeps it standby, docked in a space station. but in case something happens on the martian colonies, they would be the first able to intervene. China deciding to build the first deep-space fleet station beyond Jupiter's orbit, and deciding to just stock it up with six vessels as "reserve to reply to emergencies" Sure, they might be the ones with the capacity to help astronauts there, but they would be the ones with the reach too. Or even something as banal as prospector companies getting into an argument over a particularly rich asteroid and trying to deter each other somehow, while corporate figures it out back on Earth, no one wants to waste a trip like that go back emptyhanded.
Then as factories, docks, fuel depots, communication infrastructure etc. slowly build up, research vessels get slowly replaced by cargo vessels in space traffic, countries will start having the spare capacity(and cash) to build up dedicated vessels. They will start out as space coast guard first, focusing on rescue, surveillance and just "showing the flag" deterrence, merely showing that your country is large, technologically advanced and powerful enough to have spare spacecraft, and they would react faster to anything you might to pull. Then as more and more countries and companies get out there, the first diplomatic little affairs start happening. Not even all out war, just piddly shit like prospectors squabblinbg, X country claiming that Y country damaged its satellite, discussions over potential colony sites, developing and implementing a possible space law, etc. Mostly something for the diplomats to smooth over, but eventually some red lines would form, and because possession is like, 90% of the law, some countries would start to make steps to ensure they wouldn't be dispossessed. Mostly these would be laughably defensive and minor to us, setting up a fleet reserve, establishing a colonial police force, putting up some light defensive emplacements and anti-missile sites on a colony, and so on, but something to consider for any possible aggressor. Eventually it would bloom out into installing the regular. terrestrial equivalent of defensive emplacements for the largest and most important colonies. Surveillance, communication and target acquisition sites. multiple layers and range of aerospace defenses, some lightly armed ground vehicles and so on. Then at some point, it would start migrating into space- Combat satellites and stations, first just carrying the space-based versions of countermeasures, but eventually getting to include more and more drones and missiles, ostensibly to counter other drones and missiles, but the arms race is on now.
>>23633544That's a dope lightsaber design.
Nations would find it prudent to make mobile versions of their stations, and as their spacecraft production capabilities and reserves are swiftly growing by now, they would start equipping a few with the weaponry from the stations, keeping them as a mobile reserve force, a fleet in being and a proper, dedicated navy now, who's sole purpose is to go out and fight other space stations and space navies, if the need arises. Mind it, this would all happen completely passively, with no war or even conflict for designers to really learn from, and development continuing in leaps and bounds, just like during the second half of the 19th century, when countries raced each other building navies, just cause the others were doing it too and they couldn't stay behind. This would be the fun part, where we see wild shit, absurdly strange configurations and concepts as they are trying to figure shit out based on wild guesswork. Will the space navy of the future be manned or unmanned? Fast, small ships or large ships with lots of point defense? Missile-drones or railguns or directed energy weaponry? Should it be offensive or defensive in nature? Should we try to keep it in one big ball and destroy the enemy navy, or send it out raiding to cripple their infrastructure? What if we just built a shitzillion of cheap unmanned stations? Is stealth a viable option? What goal, or what victory could justify the literally astronomical cost of a space navy? What if planetary defenses get so good that spaceships cant even get close, once they are fully entrenched? How do we divide our navy across the solar system? How do we coordinate them on such scale? What if "ghost" ships start appearing, how do we identify and persecute them? What space laws we should develop on naval combat? What would be the rules of space war? How could a ship indicate it wants to surrender, and how it would be able to accept it? How do we avoid unrestricted, total war? How do we will an unrestricted, total war
Mucho texto.
>>23637094https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFzfgB34cCk
>>23636764>shartomic wockets
>>23637157Still not reading your essay lil bro.
What's your favorite type of spacecraft radiator? I like the ones that look like those wings of light from Gundam.
>>23637237Droplet.
>>23637237Speaking of radiators, are there any fictional spaceships that use disposable heatsinks? Meaning they ship just dumps the hot heatsink "cartridges" into space to get rid of heat. Always loved the concept since I saw that's how the guns worked in Mass Effect
>>23637304love em
>>23637305Apparently at some point in ME2's development the plan was to allow you to either wait for the heat sink to cool or to pop it for another, but they thought the system was too confusing and replaced it with the way that they un-invented their own unlimited ammo explanation.Funnily enough, laser weapons in Helldivers 2 work on that exact system and I don't think anybody finds it too confusing there.
>>23637230>little zoomer seething because a 4chan post is too long for his ADHD ass
https://youtu.be/MNkc-PCwSNo?si=4F7I5dyF7_zsGjFaHere is a version of the orion drive called the medusa drive.basically you have a sail a few kiloneter before vir starship and fire nuke at it....it can only be use when you are already in space though
>>23637806There's lots of shooters with weapons limited by a hest meter or something similae instead of ammo, I don't think it was anything novel when Ubisoft came up with it. Either their playtesters had room temperature IQ or that was the audience they were aiming for, both seem likely.
>>23638266You have both misunderstood the mechanic and mixed up the companies involved here, which is quite impressive.
>>23638033The only one seething here is you lil bro.
>>23637237It's still completely fucking insulting that the Discovery XD-1 was originally supposed to have radiators and they got shaved off at the last minute because Kubrick was scared that audiences would think that it was an airplane that flew through the air.Granted they would later think he faked the moon landings, but still; wasted potential.
>>23636787>The benefit is not having to carry the propellant with you though, which improves your performanceYou still need to spend resources to put the propellants pellets in position, the hope is that the means to do so (slow solar sail, magnetic launcher...) bring the cost down enough to make it economically viable.In the best case (where it is) you still have to trade flexibility, planning your travel weeks/months/years ahead and stick to it because orbital mechanics means pellets meant for one ship are not well positioned for any other ship.That method would also be competing in a tight market for ships that need to go fast, but still need to be planned far ahead.For the rest, I was just bringing it up as more ships not carrying their own propellant. Some of them will get better acceleration per energy than laser powered sails.>because staging still works even in the future and you should be doing itI expect future ships to be mostly made of drop-tanks with modular mount for extra-thruster.Also expecting a lot of space-tether or very long magnetic accelerator to get all the acceleration right from the start.
>>23638827Virus lookin ass
>>23637806i heard once that playtesters kept hoarding the heat sinks and never using them, just always waiting to cool down, so they removed that option because they didn't want it to slow the rate of play>>23638268why make a useless and inflammatory post when you're also incorrect lolembarrassing
>>23638307>zoomer seething continues
>>23636816>call other overconfident pseud>trust me bro!Orion are not economically viable even if you bump their stats like Musk >>23636546 and for plenty of reasons you have not even attempted to address beside sucking up to the conspiracy of the Man keeping you down.Even Sea Dragon would be better simply because recovering the main engine would ensure its reliability.I would not even exclude being able to catch the engine a la spaceX since now we have modern electronics far more reliable than the space shuttle landing computer was.
>>23637010>>23637017>>23637048>>23637061>if anyone contradict me with factual engineering arguments, they are environmentocorporatard buzzword!>but MY political fiction that only favor MY meme-ship with ridiculously inflated specs is the future!Seriously,Your fiction hinge on having mining-base/colonies to protect that suddenly need instant warship projection, all without developing thousands of others solutions that remove all niche for the only credible Orion.I've seen AI write better plots.You complained about (fair) competition killing it, I can imagine bureaucrats fighting over what the rare Orion launches would carry, creating sixty agencies to make sure no part seize up due to ice and doom bazillions worth of equipment.Meanwhile, competitors would strive with more reliable, reusable, flexible heavy-launcher that adapt quickly and gradually to any new developments, only loosing little on failure, making the Orion economically irrelevant.Any industrial operation in space would require to be able to assemble & maintain systems not designed a surface-job but with space-use in mind, modular and redundant.As a military warship or patrol ship the Orion-meme is poorly scalable, its thruster is inefficient compared to nuclear drive alternative and unpractical for all the reasons given >>23634694 assuming you can even make the propulsion capable of Surface launch.You would be better producing hundreds of smaller nuclear thermal rocket with modular systems, able to link together push anything big with greater efficiency, and providing redundancy if anything go wrong.Just the space politics of colonization or fighting over asteroids is disputable. Destroying satellites is already considered a nuclear option.
>>23637087Those are actually interesting questions.The fun would be to make settings or context that match each one. I think I might try later.>Will the space navy of the future be manned or unmanned?>Fast, small ships or large ships with lots of point defense?>Missile-drones or railguns or directed energy weaponry? Should it be offensive or defensive in nature?>Should we try to keep it in one big ball and destroy the enemy navy, or send it out raiding to cripple their infrastructure?>What if we just built a shitzillion of cheap unmanned stations?>Is stealth a viable option?>What goal, or what victory could justify the literally astronomical cost of a space navy?>What if planetary defenses get so good that spaceships cant even get close, once they are fully entrenched?>How do we divide our navy across the solar system?>How do we coordinate them on such scale? What if "ghost" ships start appearing, how do we identify and persecute them?>What space laws we should develop on naval combat?>What would be the rules of space war?>How could a ship indicate it wants to surrender, and how it would be able to accept it?>How do we avoid unrestricted, total war?>How do we will have an unrestricted, total war?
>>23637087>>23639060>manned vs unmannedProbably unmanned and remote-controlled, not like reaction time is too relevant and humans can't really take the Gs involved>fast small or large PDfast small, offense always beats defense. Get ready to see the line between drone and cruise missile blurred even more. Unless powerplants can't be downsized making huge battleships necessary, then yeah laser battleship time>missile vs rail vs directed energymissiles and lasers. Unless railguns get to relativistic speeds they won't be relevant given the speeds and ranges involved unless you're in knife fight range, at which point it's a mutually assured kill>doomstack vs outridersoutriders. you can't patrol ALL of space, and a single ship can easily carry enough payload to level anything relevant. Think of them like nuclear submarines>shitzillion of cheap thingsyes, that's the meta>stealthnot on anything meant to move. At best you can hide a station or powered down ships in space debris or asteroid belts, but you'll light up like a Christmas tree as soon as you hit go>cost of warpeer to peer war is never worth it, they will be deterrents>planetary defensesbig rock, probably a warcrime though>divide navystanding fleets around your assets, space is too big to patrol>coordinatesame as current sea fleets>space lawssubject to international summits. Probably no rocks or RKVs. Then again international laws are suggestions>surrenderradio. but surrender in war is a meme, just look at current conflicts>avoid total waragain, deterrents. space war is MAD>total waryou know that quote about WW3 being fought with sticks and stones? they were accidentally right about the stones part
>>23639056>>23639038>no you must argue within my imaginary world that a priori rules out your argument by allowing every other technology to take reasonable precautions while engineers somehow forget these principles for orion>also you're a political conspiracy theorist because it's a convenient way to call you irrational while not engaging with the points that prove me wrongnot to mention you continue to act like these things are mutually exclusive (because to admit they aren't would illuminate how stupid you're being)you know you could always just stop posting, anon. you don't have to keep humiliating yourself like this
shoutout to all those gumdrop ssto designs out theregotta be one of my favorites
>>23639209>sstoPlease don't. Ever.
>>23639209it looks like the Japanese Daleks
>manned vs unmannedManned: no lag decision-making, need of someone taking responsibility, fear of infowars/jamming.Unmanned: obvious>small or large shipForm follow functionLarge ship can use better engines and reach higher terminal velocity, both with lower or higher acceleration.>space-fighterGlorified police car meant to maneuver close to big infrastructure.>missile vs rail vs directed energymissile/railgun create lot of debris, in busy orbits or close to infrastructure it's suicidal.They could still be used to snipe with super-AI level precision, or missiles could be just a way to deliver robots to safely board/neutralize a civilian ship.>doomstack / outriders / fleet coordinationOrbital mechanics favor spreading your forces while staying able to concentrate as needed.Space travel is very slow unless you put godly efforts that come at huge sacrifice.Once you've launched your fleet toward a destination, it's essentially impossible to cancel midway.>stealthEssentially impossible against between equal opponents.But if you are small players under an undifferent authority, and your targets don't have a sensors network, allies, you could pull off a plan that don't fool the real players.>planetary defensesEntirely dependent on your opponent's budget and intent.Being around a planet orbit is no "high ground" and makes you easier to attack, worse around a moon.But Earth could be genocided by mass-producing solar sails to block all sunlight and freeze it.An airless moon covered in lasers could be a superweapon that control the solar system, melting anyone attempting to change that or sending fleets outside its range.>surrenderShutdown nuclear reactors & cool heat radiators = proof you can't produce energy/thrust anymore>space laws / cost of war / total war / piracyPolitical.To have good space battles you need a setting where everyone is polite and desperately trying to not have any fight. Else it will just be a boring genocidal missiles spam.
>>23639095I explained in details why making Orion is pointless without already having a decent reusable launch system and how having one, make the Orion economically worthless on top of its crippling flaws >>23634694. You can't even develop the damn thing safely.Whereas you never made any decent counter-arguments besides lazily misrepresenting what I said. At this point maybe I should indeed stop believing you to be of good faith (just childishly contrarian) and ignore you. Orion is still a meme-ship that only look cool superficially, while realistically a bad choice.
>>23640312sweet designs, what are they from? and what's the scale on these? the ring suggests they're a lot bigger than they look
What about space elevators?
>>23640524>another lazy bastard who doesn't want to use the stairs
>>23640563What about space escalators?
>>23640563>>23640568now i'm just imagining this diagonal cable looping around the earth until it gets to orbit
>>23633544>realistic>dazzle camo and nautical terminologyeww.
>>23636352>when a single one can lift several thousands of tons to orbitYou're talking about these things like Orion was a sure thing and not an extremely iffy technology with massive engineering hurdles to overcome just to get to a small scale demonstrator. You might as well argue for star trek beaming technology, because you're that far from reality.
>>23640640You'd have problems with atmosphere I'd imagine. The moon, though...
>>23633544reminds me of a lightsaber... now i can't help but wonder if the lightsaber is a metaphor for a rocket.
>>23640524If you have the supertech needed to make one, you're better off building different shit for cheaper. Orbital rings (no not like halo, the lift infrastructure), launch loops, etc. Or like, using it for building space colonies. They are the definition of memetech, throughput isn't even that good.
>>23640315ok, so you agree that orion is not useless because there is nothing stopping the development of other technologies to work in tandem with iti applaud you for being mature and admitting fault here. it's not easy to concede such a long argument
>>23640693is there any realism to the "orbital ring" idea?how does it stay in orbit if it's a continuous structure? is it just a really tall building that reaches orbital altitudes without really being "in orbit"?always thought these things were star wars fantasy nonsense
>>23640694Sorry, different guy here.Why do you think that detonating dozens of nukes in atmosphere every single launch is a good thing? Or like, to do even once? Yeah bombs are a lot cleaner now but it's definitely not zero. I scrolled back through and all I got was "muh environmentalists" but I think that's really not sensible/reasonable? If you are only advocating for vacuum-use orion then I guess I missed that and got no complaint but you seem to be talking about mass to orbit which suggests otherwise.
>>23640698I imagine it'd be fore like a bunch of space stations, not physically connected to one another unless the thing is REALLY flexible
>>23640698>is there any realism to the "orbital ring" idea?Lower material requirements than a space elevator at least. So it's a cost-prohibitive technology, not that it's limited by science or engineering. It stays there because spin. You don't build one until you're way past Char's Counterattack levels of space development since why else do you need such insane throughput in and out of the gravity well? Chemical rockets can be made cheap enough, and that's way less of an investment. The ring concept is actually older than the elevator one, Tesla is credited for it. Lofstrom Loops are an easier and cheaper version you might build first, basically the same principles at play so it's kinda like a "partial" orbital ring. letsgetoffthisrockalready has an article to get you a bit more info on it, you might enjoy reading.
>>23633544>Realistic spacecraftthere is no such thing. The closest that you could get is probably the Blackbird.
>>23640701i am only one of several anons replying to anti-orion guy so i can't speak for everyone, but:orion would have allowed us to build major space infrastructure earlier in history, laying groundwork for better programs laterwe did many nuclear tests already, and a few more detonations for a handful of launches, or even one orion launch, would be worth gaining a major orbital or moon base as a foothold in spacethis could have been accomplished before all enthusiasm and funding dried up, and would have changed the math for future investments in spaceit's not that orion is good now, or even very good. it's that orion would have made things described in books like "the high frontier" more likely to have actually materialized
>>23640734>orion would have allowed us to build major space infrastructure earlier in historySure that's true but boy would it have been insanely expensive and increase cold war tensions. Doesn't make this less true, it is a retardedly simple method and would work.>would be worth gaining a major orbital or moon base as a foothold in spaceI don't entirely agree, this is more of a value judgement than anything but that is your value of it so it's consistent with your other reasoning.>this could have been accomplished before all enthusiasm and funding dried upThis is untrue, there was never any enthusiasm, Apollo was outrageously unpopular even back then and this would definitely have been even more contentious and expensive than Apollo. >it's not that orion is good now, or even very goodAgreed.>it's that orion would have made things described in books like "the high frontier" more likely to have actually materializedSeems like wishful thinking.Okay well sure. I guess you're really invested in current space race 2.0 then since it's popping off like crazy? Personally I've very pleased with the prospects of being a civilian on the moon before I die as it looks right now, or at least in an orbital station. Would love to hear your positivity and excitement on this. Thanks.
>>23640743Oh yeah to clarify, I am genuinely interested in talking about current spaceflight. This isn't some kind of double meaning or insult or challenge or whatever. I am being explicit because I'm also autistic. And it's on topic.Germany is fucking retarded for putting their money on some stupid fucking SSTO spaceplane concept. Send post.
>>23640743kind of absurd to imply the first space race didn't exist ("no enthusiasm"), then invoke "space race 2.0" in the same post, no?
>>23640712>letsgetoffthisrockalready has an article to get you a bit more info on it, you might enjoy reading.thanks for the lead, and the thoughtful reply
>>23640747No because that's not the same thing? Space race never equalled space enthusiasm. We don't have space enthusiasm today either. It's a politics and money thing. There was politics that supported the development of rockets then despite no popularity and enthusiasm, and now there is two rich guys and china going nuts hard enough to convince a bunch of nations to invest in launch capability because there is now probably money and political power to be gained from it.Hope that clears up what I meant. Cheers.
>>23640750fair enough. by enthusiasm i meant government willingness to spend on these kinds of programs, not necessarily public opinion, so my bad for communicating poorlythe argument is that if we had gone forward with orion before the space race dried up, it would have enabled larger infrastructure that in turn makes continued space investment more attractivethis could have shifted the outcome more in line with projections people were making in the 60s and 70s for space developmentit's definitely aspiratioal but this is a board for science fiction from that era
>>23640760>in line with projections people were making in the 60s and 70s for space developmentI always saw those as pure marketing, like fusion predictions. "Bro just give us the funding I swear this will happen! It will be so worth". Since the actual development is inevitable (and ongoing) I never buy into the hype. Fusion is just recently hitting what, Q_sci of ~0.3? Yeah it's improving, it will get there someday I'm sure.>VGH, what could have been...Just isn't my vibe.
>>23640790i just spent a lot of my life reading old sci-fi or watching the kinds of stuff this board is about, and the world people imagined they'd see in the next few decadesliving in the "future" and seeing how things actually went i can't help but imagine how it could have been different
>>23640519Managed to reverse search up to thishttps://forums.scifi-meshes.com/discussion/62679/imperial-prussian-assault-frigateYou'll want to look up the last pagesI would play a game with such design (annoyed as fuck by the blocky=realishm design or art-deco space-sculpture)
>>23640524>>23640693Orbital ring for the win!>>23640698>is there any realism to the "orbital ring" idea?>>23640708Truth to be said: the GOOD version is difficult to explain, and the silly sci-fi version is a ridiculous building that look sillier than elevator.I've yet to find a good picture of the realistic kind.You have to understand the true concept (as a space launch system) isn't a static structure, it's a dynamic one.Think more of it as a "train rail"...that is orbiting Earth, moving as fast as needed to orbit.On those rail there's a "space train" that (when needed) accelerate in the opposite direction, moving so fast it stops moving relative to Earth.Since it doesn't orbit anymore, it should fall toward Earth, but it doesn't because it is holding itself magnetically over the rail.And the rail itself isn't dragged down because its mass and the extra speed the train gave it during acceleration give it upward momentum....then the train deploy a crane reaching 150km down to Earth, or you build a permanent structure constantly riding the moving rail.This guy get it >>23640712Orbital ring should be far easier to make than space elevator- it doesn't require absurdly strong material,- it is roughly as long as Space elevator ~40,000km but don't require constant stress, thought it might require continuous effort to keep stable,- it can in theory be stopped for maintenance unless you build a permanent structure,- It doesn't require cleaning 45,000km of orbits to minimize collision,- multiple rings can be built around Earth,- as I understand the concept, you don't need magnetic systems on its entire length,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMbI6sk-62E
>>23641541ringed ships are neat, there's an entire subfaction in EVE with this aesthetic. Probably the most realistic looking ones desu
>>23640694Not what I said in the very post you quoted, Orion is pointless without other technologies and not usefull once you have those.But I am more mature than you disingenuously pretending to be open-minded to save face.>>23640734>orion would have allowed us to build major space infrastructure earlier in history, laying groundwork for better programs laterIt's a shortsighted tunnel-vision that ignore all practical & economic aspects,Again, without a proper reusable heavy-launch you can't supply and maintain those "infrastructure". You can't exactly build a new Orion every time you need to repair/upgrade equipments or realize you needed to bring something else. And when you DO have regular reusable heavy-launch, you no longer have economic incentive to build a high-risk kaboom generator.Plus the inevitable difficulty of developing it in the first place.Remember how many SpaceX rockets exploded? Now imagine that with Orion prototypes.It may sound "easy", but it is NOT easy to ride nuclear explosion while opening-closing every second a heavy shield, balanced on multiple shock-absorbers, making not propellant fluid but nuclear bombs flow from their storage gantry.I can easily imagine "Oops, a mechanism jammed", "Oops, the aiming mechanic froze", "Oops, the bomb detonated slightly off"...>we did many nuclear tests alreadyWe never detonated bomb 800 bombs, 1 per second, over half of the world, knowing that if it fails midway the remaining 400 bombs+heavy ship fall in someone's country.>it's not that orion is good now, or even very good.If only you understood the other aspects that push it into a bad idea.>it's that orion would have made things described in books like "the high frontier" more likely to have actually materializedSuperstructure require more than "big mass go up", you need reusable & flexible launch system to a level that make Orion worthless.>>23640701Environment isn't the main problem, it's a poor design see >>23634694
>>23641702granted they don't spin ingame, but still
>>23641702Have more then.Something I would use ring on spaceship for is as heat radiators.The "flat" kind of heat radiation only have one entry point for heat and if it's damaged there, the whole radiator is kaput.But if the heat can be transmitted to the ring through multiple entry point, you have less single-point failure.If part of the radiator-ring is destroyed, the liquid could be rerouted back while still preserving most of its capacity.The ring being further away from the center of mass would also make it a harder target.
>>23641734also makes you a bigger target, and I doubt losing one of the struts is great for the structural integrity of the ship. Unbalanced spinning things don't tend to last long>>23641744Okay at some point you start running into diminishing returns with radiators
>>23641709>without a proper reusable heavy-launch you can't supply and maintain those "infrastructure"correct, that's why i keep saying you should have reusable shuttles for smaller launches after lifting the major weight with orionnobody but you has suggested using orion to the exclusion of all other launch platforms, because they're not mutually exclusive (except in your imaginary world where you are always right and the facts twist to make sure you win internet arguments)you are arguing against a strawman and i can't tell if you're acting in bad faith or just stupid
>>23641701that makes a lot more sense than a solid ring, thanks anonstill need to look up that article the other anon mentioned but this was a very helpful post
>>23641753It's for dusting the space blinds.
>>23640833You should get excited about beamed power solutions right now then. If we can build the power and array for $50Bn and you were focusing on using it for big payloads (100tn) then you only need to be doing something like 167 or so launches per year to reach $100/kg amortized. Chump change really, 0.16% of US GDP. The math is worse if you're doing 10 ton payloads ofc, you'd need 10x as many launches to make it as justified cost wise. Upper stage boosting, debris deorbiting and such would also help justify the cost. Way less controversial than nukes too, even though it would be a death laser its pointing up at the sky and not down at civilization.We are doing like maybe 1 launch a day on average globally this year. Once we are seeing double that for the global average it would make sense to have this kind of infrastructure. Start designing rockets for this now imo, start building in 3-5 years if launch cadence continues to increase at the current pace (to be ready in like a decade).
>>23642042beamed power as in pushing vehicles with lasers?yeah that shit is way cooler and more viable than orion, i would love to see it become a reality
>>23642082Nah not laser sails if that's what you are thinking, I am talking about in-atmosphere stuff. Using beamed power directed at heat exchangers on lift vehicles, lets you get way more out of your fuel to heat it externally. I'm talking ISP going from the 300-400s ranges to 600s+. Works nicely as a hybridized solution and you can deploy it in vacuum too if you want later to boost chemical rocket performance a lot. NTR and NEP rated for cislunar operations makes a lot of sense, but doubling or better your chemical rocket ISP for a "only" a couple billion dollars per site is a no brainer once you are launching a lot already. Laser sails are cool for probes I guess, but this infrastructure wouldn't be optimized for that.
>>23642093oh i see, yeah that sounds like an easy thing to tack on to the existing technology in use
>>23641753>also makes you a bigger target, Size matter little at that point, all projectiles are guided and spaceship are NOT going to dodge anything.Stealth or decoys are essentially impossible in space.>and I doubt losing one of the struts is great for the structural integrity of the ship. Unbalanced spinning things don't tend to last long1) Radiator aren't going to be anywhere heavy enough to unbalance the rest2) You can have extra minimal struts, what matter is only to have redundant way to send the fluid in the radiator3) It can serve as ablative armor, IMHO spaceship design will only be about redundancy and preventing a single shot from disabling everything. Since you operate in a vacuum, you don't need aerodynamic nor to build compact.4) The classic radiator design is far worseRealistic spaceship aren't going to face high acceleration, even the "Orion" only get hypothetical acceleration in atmosphere because it overheated air to push itself.
What they took from us
>>23644642I can't find it for the life of me but there's a great cartoon pic of Werner with the cross-section of a rocket done by the Disney gang for internal consumption, like he's in lederhosen and there's a barrel of sauerkraut in the engines to give an idea of the humor involved
>>23644665disney man in space 1955
>>23641787Say the guy who keep putting words in my mouth, somehow not remembering >>23639056 >>23640315 >>23636672.>lifting the "major weight"- develop risky, single-use, unpractical nuclear meme-ship to maybe launch a 1,600tons payload once/twice a year.versus- improve safe, reusable launch system you needed anyway to assemble it, reliably do >10,000tons a year. (F9 already do 2,000tons/yrs)Easy choice.No doubt -your- imaginary world have a single-piece payload that only the Orion can launch and justify everything, the extra development cost, the risk of loosing all in a crash, slower launch rate, designing said payload to resist ~3G of acceleration, making it fit inside the Orion, taking money away from better launch system but still need them to do anything actually useful...The more you look at it, Orion was only interesting for the instant explorer/warship meme and even then it was not worth the trouble.My turn to psychoanalyze you: it's like there's a childish leap of logic in your mind "huge payload = instant station of that mass = superior" and it doesn't matter if it makes no sense logistically.
>>23633570ball turret mounted lasers are so gay
>>23644782Imagine if they had actually militarized this thing
>>23644787Scratching my head as to why you'd think that.
>>23644806instead they decided to do a stupid bombing run by dropping mining explosives out the back...Humans in this world can travel to another galaxy but they don't have long range missiles and have to use a shuttle as a bomber...
>>23644879that said, by the end of the second movie I don't see any feasible way for the furries to win, so it's going to be interesting to see what they pull out of their ass this time
>>23644782you're the densest motherfucker i have ever seen on this board and i deeply regret ever replying to youit's like talking to a brick wall. you have impressively poor reading comprehension and a baffling lack of self-awarenessthere is literally no point in trying to reason with you. no matter what i say, you will write a response like this where you ramble on about imginary strawmen and accuse others of your own retarded behavioryou are a drain on everyone around you and i feel for your family and coworkers. it must be exhausting for them
>>23644782Have you posted this argument on any other sites?
>>23644879>Humans in this world can travel to another galaxthey traveled to another solar system that was within a dozen or so lighyears of earth. Another galaxy is an entirely different level of scale
>>23644806>Imagine if they had actually militarized this thing>>23644879Given the setting the elephant in the room is that they only needed a "rod of god" radiation-free attack on their target, and the whole "electromagnetic interference" is only to sell the idea of native being able to fight back without dying to aimbot-turret.You could destroy the ecosystem just with solar sails.>>23644887Not that I care about Avatar's consistency but they established the idea of the entire planet being a networked brain, with the ability to download a human brain into itself.So if I had to close the story myself They eventually link Gaia to some human super-AI, from there the mindless-AI & mindful-Gaia fight each others for control of course you add plenty of obstacles and last minute "If we can't take the planet I'll destroy it".Not a stupid ecogreen win ending tho, Gaia would be forced to develop technology or die.
>>23645416Sure, here and there, and most of the argument come from other websites.It's not difficult to understand why Orion is unpractical at best, and even getting one to work is nowhere even close to "easy" as fanboy believe.
>>23646992The thing is, by 2 the've built a MUCH bigger city-fortress with 3D printed mechs and turrets. The whole "angry animal stampede" thing won't work again, even the planet decided to kick them out. So unless the planet can split tectonic plates in half and swalllow up the city, charging lemurs at machine gun emplacements won't end well
>>23647181That's why I brought up the spoiler idea, not an actual spoiler tho,build up the human city-wide AI as a sort of techno-spirit equivalent to Navi's Gaia and once they connect to each other (given avatar's very nature no one will bat an eye no matter if you sprout god damn roots to link to the computer like it link to brains)If Gaia can hack AI it would basically control all infrastructure, and human have enough problem sending Valkyrie ships there to send warship, you could defeat those easily with cheap 3D printed missiles.Ok, mankind might say "fuck you!" and send relativistic missiles to (years later) destroy the planet but that can be avoided by having Gaia look too much like good guys to deserve that, play some human politic, they were a colonial force after all.>unless the planet can split tectonic plates in half and swalllow up the cityOr a tsunami, but yeah, that would look ridiculous and everyone would be like "why didn't it do that sooner?"
>>23647401
>>23647401the reason given for humanity not just glassing the planet or sending a big rock is that Earth is so fucked up that they've decided humanity (the rich ones) are gonna live in Pandora instead. Which is a bit of an iffy justification since everything there including the atmosphere wants to kill you, and they never say this is the only habitable planet discovered. It'd be a much bigger deal if it was.
For me, it's the Maskinganna
>>23647468Realistically mankind is more likely to live in orbital habitat replicating their ecosystem with bioengineering, than find a planet with conveniently compatible ecosytem, including sexy humanoid furry with the right numbers of limbs.Of course the statistic of finding such planet so close mean that just moving 30ly further you might find a better planet of thirsty space-elves digging your human ways and have a religion of offering all their lands & resources to technological angels.
>>23656784Railgun?
>>23656847The big column?>多目的懸架柱No. The small turret looking guns on the hull?>連装電離砲Also no.The full armament listing is on the page under 砲熕兵器>ion cannons (particle beams) of one spec x 3>particle beams of a different spec x 3>16 VLS cell missile pack x 2>爆雷投射軌条 x 2 (I have no idea what he means with this and I can't see it on the image so not gonna guess)
>>23656875ran ti through Goggle lands and the front column is a "multi purpose suspension column?" Must be some kind of antenna
>>23656784
>>23659149>>23659154>Shooting torpedoes out of a railgunsweet
this pic made me wonder what Lunar warfare would look like.For a start>absolute artillery dominationwith low gravity and no atmospheric drag projectile would go ridiculously far, the only limitation will come from precision and the ability of projectiles to alter their trajectory (rotating and dropping lunar powder?)your projectiles won't need to be aerodynamic so you can have shapes that are very hard to shoot down>infantrylimited by oxygen and biological needs, by then armies are likely to be 99% robotsplus what was said about artillery>battletankunderperforming, you don't really need tracks to move over lunar soil and given projectile speeds, armor is likely to be futile, you better bet on numbers and redundancy>mechafuck yes,beside the obvious reasons, in low gravity it becomes harder to brakes and change direction, you'll be throwing lot of dust around and the slightest bump at high speed will send you flyingSo it would actually make sense to bet on a vehicle that can control its clearance as wanted>air supportmore like vacuum supportloitering time would be a bad joke, low gravity yes, but constant use of propellant,I can imagine transport tugs with no need for aerodynamic>orbital bombardmentlow gravity is in favor of ground defenselack of atmosphere bring lasers to the tableyou may have plenty of spaceships to divert asteroid or stuff, but they'll be very costly, very fragile, the moon would easily be more important than Mars to colonize
>>23660820>your projectiles won't need to be aerodynamicTechnically there's a lot of overlap with aerodynamics and having low RCS so probably less of this than you think.>>infantryIf your army is 99% human, eliminating just 1% of the army neuters it entirely. If you want magical robots who are AI that can think and act on their own, okay. Sure, we can do fantasy I guess.>battletankWeak grasp of what tanks are, what they do, and how they do it.>mechaLunar dust is hellish on every joint. Cover them like Labors do at minimum. Also the human form isn't particularly useful in low gravity, a grasshopper or kangagoo-like configuration would be more efficient movement in lunar gravity. Sorry if that's lame.>orbital bombardmentweird premise, gravity well isn't on the side of any orbital attacker like it is on Earth, or at least not as much on their side.only opens up UV spectrum and xasers really.weird premise, totally baffling apparent assumptions in consideration of the other proposals.
not the most realistic, but I quite like the Stiletto's design
>>23661078>overlap with aerodynamics and having low RCSGiven vacuum and future sensors cloud, stealth would be basically impossible even for an inert projectile launched magnetically.>If your army is 99% human, eliminating just 1% of the army neuters it entirely.I assume you meant to say 99% robots, your point is only valid if it involves baffling incompetence.No one said the 1% would be congregated into one easy target, 99% of robots can make them harder to find/kill than an army 50% human and its more fragile logistic.>If you want magical robots who are AI that can think and act on their own, okay. Sure, we can do fantasy I guess.I don't but if you want we can talk about fantasy glorifying humans action or decision in jobs that AI already do better & faster.>Weak grasp of what tanks are, what they do, and how they do it.That's what I think of anyone assuming tanks would look the same or use tracked locomotion on a low-grav moon. Just the increased risk of flipping upside would change it.>Lunar dust is hellish on every joint.Labor-like cover is already easier and better than what we have to protect axles, wheels & tracks.>the human form isn't particularly useful in low gravity, a grasshopper or kangagoo-like configuration would be more efficient movement in lunar gravity. >Sorry if that's lame.Plenty of ways of making scary insect-mecha, if we don't make raptor-like, spider or tentacle bots.Also not difficult to logically end up with 4x limbed upright robot plus extra sensor apparatus by seeking flexibility & other functionalities>weird premise, gravity well isn't on the side of any orbital attacker like it is on Earth, or at least not as much on their side.No weirder than premises where war happens only in a way that exclude efficient or genocidal methods, putting the attackers/defenders at disadvantage to even it out.We could spend weeks discussing a setting and what attacker/defenders can do and are willing to do.
>>23661538My niggaI loved the Sol human ships too.
>>23662259>in jobs that AI already do better & faster.
>>23662477Ukies drones are already using AI trained system to keep diving on target after the connection is lostpay respect to the starfighter we will never have
>>23663492Targetting/flight systems that can survive loss of communication with the controller/host existed long before tech CEOs started calling everything AI. Optical guidance isn't anything new, even if applied to a different kind of munition here.
>>23664317That's the point, human are phased out, electronics system take over with much greater range and efficiency and war is changing with it, no point imagining human fighting space war like it's a WWII palette-swap.The moon would be quite favorable to UCGV, no grass, no tree, no weather, simple lightning conditions, no medium for thick smoke, no wildlife to filter, EVA suits are easier to detect and so is anything capable of carrying humans, all comm and sensors signals are cleaners.Wondering if the moon daytime surface temperature 120°C could help fooling IR sensors.
I'm working on this 4ft long LEGO spaceship design. The aft engines area and side modular sections on the X brackets still need to be worked on. Based the design on some old ship image I found here years ago.
Another view
>>23664757all things are possible through minovsky particlesso jot that down
>>23666469>>23666474Absolutely baller anon, though I have ti ask. If this is a "realistic" ship, then why does it have a horizontal bridge? does it have artificial gravity?
>>23666510Minovsky particles are easy modeConnoisseurs' spaceships have heat radiators, huge propellant tanks, no artificial gravity beside rotation, fear debris more than asteroids, no stealth, and only begrudgingly accept FTL after making it safe for the setting.
How do you justify realistic space carrier when space-fighter are no more interesting than just slugging missiles?
>>23668686You don't. Unless you create a wacky fictional substance that somehow can saturate space and fuck with automated guidance systems, so you have to use humans.
>>23668686Use small fighters for smaller stuff that don't require to moves the big gun, quicker reaction time to intercept missiles or enemies going for strategic pointUse them to disable large space station with finesse instead of nuking everything
>>23668686space police vs space militarypolice need armed reusable manned spaceship that can board and inspect merchant starships which is significantly more complicated then just shooting a nuke missile at them.
>>23668686Flying CAP beyond sensors range of the mothership. Fighters are the eyes and ears of the carrier meant to intercept threats before they get in range of the mothership. You won't always get perfect info on your target to just lob a cruise missile on a months-long pre-planned trip
>>23668686In my own "realistic" setting fighters are more small ships in their own right and sit between the big missile and particle beam sluggers attempting to shoot down enemy ordinance.idk if that's at all a truly realistic use of them but once you add mechs to a setting the realism gets tenuous at best so better to go full ham
>>23670358Realistically sensors range in space reach far beyond what a credible fighter could reach.Unless you have FTL or such
>>23671304Maybe there's stuff on the way. If you're in orbit or similarly close to a planet, the planet itself will block sensors, so you send drones/fighters to take a peek. SAVAGES does this pretty well. IIRC those are only camera drones, but you could probably have bigger missile-armed dornes in a dedicated carrier ship
>>23671418So long as we agree sensors have essentially system-wide range, I'm in using drones/fighter to do small stuff without needing to move the big spaceship.>SAVAGESI'll take what we get but it's more Nasapunk than realistic.
>>23672340I think it's worth considering the fact that your ship's sensors might not have said range. With current tech, we get readings using multiple readings from multiple different instruments, meaning various satellites, observatories, etc. And in space, mass comes at a premium. So if your ship is meant for patrolling Low Titan Orbir, it's not gonna carry a whole ass Hubble telescope along with the other many instruments required to measure every spectrum of emissions etc.
>>23672657Our best sensors are all single-purpose sat launched by rockets, extremely limited in power and size.A meager 1000tons payload future spaceship could carry 360° JWST-rated sensors as the equivalent of a parking-sensor to avoid micrometeorites or debris because you can't armor spaceship.>mass comes at a premiumIndeed, which is why you'd minimize propellant spent on repositioning sensors.No point spending 10tons of reactive mass each time you send sensors, if you can carry a 10tons sensor that give you the data you need.>your ship is meant for patrolling Low Titan OrbitForm follow function, what does patrolling entail?We could ask for the entire setting here, because to me a lone-ship in low Titan orbit is at the best place to use gravitational slingshots to launch itself outside of Saturn's orbit for interplanetary interception.Or it's a carrier-ship meant to send interceptors to police suspicious ships within Saturn's orbits.Plus, if space is exploited so far you need a full-time spaceship around Titan, it may be overspecialized because it has laser-link with so many other spaceships and infrastructure it's basically omniscient.You reminded me of the game Ring of Saturn.
>>23673527Great game, really activates the autism
>>23668686By making a single warship need only 1-3 actual humans which is a real possibility with enough AI and automation. Since the warship might at times hit 8-10G acceleration, it might as well be piloted like a fighter or mecha.
>>23674246I don't disagree but you are just defending some warships being focused on acceleration, and it might not get a niche as it will be easier to shot down projectiles than escape them, and such system are massive.
>>23674448Your warship might not fly like a missile,but if it can see the miasile coming from the other end of the solar system then it has enough time to get out of the way,/out of ramge, get inaide ots turning radius, etc
Post /m/ shuttles
>>23674489>turning radius>spaceAnon you need to learn more about orbital mechanic, and remember that realistic future missiles would maneuver like super genius working together, predicting every move you can or could do with your propellant 10 months ahead, while having superior range, acceleration, agility and no need to survive.Making missiles that smart is no cost whatsoever, it would be easier than current AI-boosted drones operating in a complex environment.Making missiles with superior mobility than their target would be cost-efficient with a vastly easier mission profile.Plus of all the things a missile would be better at, turning around to burn in another direction will be at the top.https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardefense.php#id--Evasive_Maneuvers--Moment_of_Inertia>time to get out of the wayMissile-bus planned it and split into sub-missiles aiming for every trajectory you can reasonably take, those sub-missiles can no longer outrange you but they don't need to as you are physically incapable of taking a trajectory that won't allow one to intercept, many sub-missiles will be wasted yes but it only needs one to destroy your ship and it's worth it.For those who played CoDE, remember the dev simply don't have the means to code the future-AI who would be ruling future warfare.
>>23675102I don't mean turning radius like a star wars fighter, but I imagine some of the concepts of today's BVR aerial combat might apply. Of course under normal conditions a missile will ALWAYS hit the target, but the survivality onion stil lapplies in space. Don't be seen gets a lot harder in space since stealth is practically impossible, but chaff, ECM, PD fire in all its forms including guns, missiles and lasers, and of course as a final layer, defensive flying. The 10G accelearion comes in on that final one. Also worth noting that any projectiles you fire will keep your momentum, so being able to change that on a whim helps offensively too. there's a strategic side to it as well, a ship that can do 10g gets places faster than one that can do 1G. But I think we're getting into torchship territory
>>23675108I appreciate you looking deeper into the topic but "the survivability onion" apply differently depending on technology and context.You really can't compare space warfare to any other form of warfare, we can't even predict ground warfare in 100y.For all I know we won't have space-warship because war will be only won by smuggled nano-assembler-AI.Let's start with the most important:>a ship that can do 10g gets places faster than one that can do 1G. But I think we're getting into torchship territoryAcceleration =/= maximum (relative) speed =/= maximum range (deltaV)You can be capable of 20G of acceleration and not have enough dV to reach the moon.Or you can travel to Mars faster with a slow 0.1G brachistochrone acceleration than with a ship doing two 10G hohmann transfer burns (for silly reason).To get high-acceleration you typically have to sacrifice efficiency (range) and your warship is supposed to eventually get home, so more than half of its mass will be return fuel (if we introduce tankers they become targets for space-Ukrainian)So I'll be straight: even a minimal 10G fighter-small-warship is off my book, you'll need to start evading equally-engined-missile from so far you'll still be at home.Aside, ships in "The Expanse" break physics a LOT.>Don't be seen gets a lot harder in space since stealth is practically impossibleHonestly it's just impossible, save contrived scenarios where your enemy can't see to begin with.>but chaff, ECMAlso impossible, anyone able to make space missiles would easily filter anything but the target.>PD fire in all its forms including guns, missiles and lasers"You are here"That's hardkill defense and more a matter of economyDoes your antimissile reach far enough to hit missile-bus before they split?Can you destroy all sub-missiles before they start dodging maneuver at 20G?Can you destroy all shrapnels before they tear through your ship paper armor?The only defense I expect to hold is redundancy.
>>23675184>deltaV, the ExpanseThat's why I said we're getting into torchship territory, any serious travel at those accelerations needs magical infinite fuel rockets. But then we start running into the issue of every ship becoming a planet-buster....>ECM is impossibleI call bullshit on that. All guidance and targeting systems can be fooled, there's no magical "just filter out the countermeasures lol" solution, it's in the same magical realm as infinite fuel>hardkillWell yeah, that's hwy it's only one layer of the onion. It's not that every single layers reduces 100% of a threat, it's that they all compound on each other to make your ship survivable. If 100 missiles are fired at you, and decoys get 50, your PD has to do half the work. Then PD gets 40 missiles, suddenly you only need to dodge 10. You're still dead most likely, but you get my idea. Chances of evading 10 missiles are a lot better than evading 100
>>23675199>That's why I said we're getting into torchship territoryI don't think you get the scope and I think you grossly overestimate ECM/decoy.Missiles would also be torchship-fast, your trajectory would still be very predictable (see the link I gave about moment of inertia).Let's take the arbitrary case about surviving 100 (sub-munition) with "10" being the maximum number you can actually hope to escape with evasion.What if your "decoys" turn out to only bait 30? (or zero IMO)What if the PD you'd need to destroy 40 is so heavy it ruins your mobility?What if the PD can only destroy 20?Plus, given the proportions you gave, Pareto say to maximize the efficiency of what protect the most.I hope you do recognize that at some point maths can say "don't bother".>I call bullshit on that. There's no magical "All guidance and targeting systems can be fooled" magical realm either.The few reasons anti-air missiles are still (barely) foolable is because of miniaturization, cost-efficiency and far more difficult atmospheric environment.Missiles can detect a ship using IR, Radar, sight or obtain it via datalinkThey can remember where they are, where the ship was and vectors, easy computing.They can ignore "decoys" that:a) aren't as massive as the targetb) aren't following a trajectory change a ship is capable of (movement make decoys very difficult)c) aren't accelerating with the same mass/energy (because your decoy won't have the same mass&thruster as the real ship)They can ignore:d) jamming source not where the ship wase) radar signal not where both IR & radar are/weref) obtain data from non-jammed source/sub-munitionsEven if you (try to) blind the guidance system with a laser, it can be negated by having missiles sharing data (if it even works).And then there's the timing: If you cannot hide your position long enough, or do it too late, it makes the whole attempt pointless.Stealth in space is impossible even on short timeframe
>>23675440You're thinking in absolutes. Just because something isn't guaranteed to work 100% of the time doesn't mean it's not worth doing. Chaff doesn't fool missiles 100% of the time on fighter jets either but standard procedure is to spam chaff anyways. They're not doing it for the pretty lights, they do it because it bumps up your survival odds. >magical all-aspect missiles with perfect anti-chaff systems and an integrated supercomputer that can perform flight calculations more complex than the target itself while also carrying an entire ISS's worth of science equipmentYeah ok.
>>23675474Afraid there's nothing absolute about it, it's bog-standard expectation when it comes to future technologies.I don't want to be rude but you are just extrapolating from cold-war areal warfare when wild-weasel maneuvers were still a workable SEAD method.Nowadays even small manpad missiles are built with the anti-flare method I tried to explain to you."The newest generation of the FIM-92 Stinger uses a dual IR and UV seeker head, which allows for a redundant tracking solution, effectively negating the effectiveness of modern decoy flares (according to the U.S. Department of Defense)."And look at how you believe plotting a trajectory is hard, when it's easier than in the atmosphere because there's no aerodynamic components, it's all ballistic.>magical all-aspect warship with integrated super-PD systems that can shoot down dozens of anti-warship missiles while dodging at 10G, dropping perfect decoys indistinguishable from a nuclear torchship at full accelerationYeah ok.
>>23675474>supercomputer that can perform flight calculations more complex than the target itself while also carrying an entire ISS's worth of science equipmentsmartphones have more than enough computing power for that and you won't need cutting edge technology
>>23675607>I don't want to be rude butnta but you're extremely condescending in all your posts, it's exhausting to readyou can be informative without constantly belittling people. in fact, they're more likely to learn from you that way
>>23677105I'll look into that but I'm not the one who started with greentext or ignoring points.There's only so much one can do when the other believes "you are thinking in absolutes" or that point X is bargainable because laws of physics don't exclude silly scenarios.If there is a niche for torchship that mainly dodge projectile at high-G acceleration, it's going to require a custom setting similar to stealth spaceship.To show good faith I can try to make one:>high-G spaceshipHigh-trust don't actually get you to a destination faster (orbital fuckery) unless you accept wasting propellant (a premium) or make it worth it.Easy refuel>warshipPolitical clusterfuck that prevent missile/laser spam, started as police ships facing rebels protected by a crazy level of anonymity, kept around by political inertia, repurposed to face robots instantly hacked into terrorists.>low-tech stupid missiles versus high-tech warshipEnemies unable to produce proper missiles, say: terrorists in weak politically neutral states but protected by hostile superstate who could delete all warship with proper missiles if the war got hot, no Caribbean like pirate possible tho>inefficient, too massive or unecessary point-defenseTo make movements both easier & enough against dumb missiles that mostly use speed and fragmentation, and no, decoy still wouldn't work at all in that context it's just too easy to ignore.Even then, that setting hold mostly on politics finding an interest in that status-quo and you are one attack away from destroying something too important to let it continue.
I wonder if stealth would be possible in areas chock-full of debris or other blockages. Maybe inside a ring system, or an extremely Kessler'd orbit
>>23677750You'd need a debris field full of big unbroken objects, some debris hotter than your ship on minimal life-support & energy, any thrusters (even RCS) also need to be colder/weaker (very low efficiency) or maybe look like the energy delivered during regular collisions.It would be suicidal-level of dangerous because you'll become debris unless you have perfect tracking using passive sensors of everything nearby (including pebbles moving at armor-piercing speed), or predicted a safe trajectory ahead (but if you can do that, other can).Remain the question of WHY you'd do that and how you hope it helps? Setting&stuff.If you come from outside the debris-ring, anyone keeping log know you went in and can still track you after you go cold because you are really not a non-suspicious ship turning into debris.So without wanting to be condescending I'd say "no, still not possible".I tried imagining asteroid-bases armored enough to safely operate around a kessler ring, without success.
>>23677750>>23678003I'll make the point that stealth isn't on/off. There's always virtue in reducing the amount that you're shouting 'FUCK ME HERE' to whom it may concern. The question of course, is how much it's worth the tradeoffs.For a real world example, take a look at the Super Hornet. It's a bigger plane than the original Hornet but it has something like a tenth of the frontal RCS. They weren't trying to make a true VLO stealth fighter, but the designers still felt it was worthwhile giving the intakes S-ducts to conceal the turbine blades, smoothing over unnecessary ridges and voids and I believe subtly adjusting geometry in a few places for lower radar return.Being less observable by your enemy will always be better than being more observable, all other things being equal.The kinds of sensors you expect to be observed with will matter too, for that matter.
>>23677744if you really think this is good faith there may be no helping you
>>23678030The Hornet is a very old design, starting long before anyone needed stealth, Cold War radar and missiles were shit, baiting & dodging missiles was a legit method to suppress air-defense.There are other reasons to use S-ducts long before stealth: it just helps shaping your plane to be thinner, more aerodynamic, lighter or fit in a carrier.Same goes for "low frontal RCS", improving aerodynamic, helping pilot visibility, or carrier use were reasons enough to make aircraft thin.That generation of airplane cared more for performances with "fuselage boundary layer diverter channel" than whether it would reflect radar waves.Considering the sizes & mass we are talking about, it would be more judicious to use recent stealth warships as example. They have no expectation to roam invisibly like a submarine, it just make it harder for the cheapest kind of missiles (modern missiles recognize targets by visual shape, communicate and distribute themselves to not hit the same targets).Naval ships operate in a medium that's fairly good for stealth, they move by displacing free water, can use said water to distribute their heat, a fairly hot surrounding to mask their own heat...Spaceship however... at best you can hide what they carry with panels.
I've always wondered, couls you hide your temp with air(vacuum)-gapped plates have your ship emcased in a "shell" that'a not physically touching it, or only linked with small insulated struts. The only heat getting to the shell should be tiny amounts of radiated heat fromthe inner shell,and could be resuced even further with layers of i aulation. Of course it doesn't work with the engine running, and your crew will start cooking if you stay in "stealth mode" too long, but for a while... have the outer shale made of radar absorbent materials to help rcs, and some type of space camo to help optical sensors... I'm sure it'd at least help. Hell, the "shell" couñd maybe even be some sort of "bag" pr other materisñ that can be deployed and then rolled up and stored once not in use.
>>23679104Anon, you didn't read very closely. The SUPER HORNET made those decisions as conscious improvements to the existing Hornet airframe. Which is why I made the comparison. The Super Hornet hit IOC in 2001, its entire existence is to be a post-Cold-War replacement for most of the roles of the Tomcat. It was explicitly designed to significantly lower RCS. Feel free to go read up on the design differences between the legacy bug and the superbug some time, as you clearly haven't.I used it as an example because it's a case where without being a 'stealth fighter' it still makes conscious choices to be more stealthy rather than less stealthy, which is the entire point I was making.I am astonished that you can talk with such authority while missing basic stuff in the post you're responding to.
Over the years I have grown to hate every single "green" buzzword, because all "green" people do is stifle any sort of progress at the bidding of their masters.
>>23679332What the fuck are you talking about? You mean like "green energy"?
>>23679381I think it's the Project Orion guy again.
>>23679248he's kind of a dipshit who only cares about winning the argument (not about being correct) been talking out of his ass the entire thread
>>23679136That's more or less the gist of how the SSV Normandy's stealth systems are described as working. The ship can retain enough emissions in internal heat sinks to make it functionally invisible to sensors at regular BVR ranges in the setting, but maintaining that state for more than a few hours will saturate the heat sinks and start cooking the ship. There's also no way to hide the emissions shifting from FTL travel, so even within a single system it's not a get-out-of-jail-free card.Mass Effect has a lot of fun ideas, some people on the writing team clearly enjoyed thinking through some interesting realistic applications of the setting's breaks from science.
>>23681006I love the part when you sneak up to a Geth station and the pilot goes "we should be invisible to them, as long as they don't look out of a window"
>>23681006the writing for the first game was a masterclass in leveraging a single magic science conceit into as many cool technological solutions as possiblesadly they abandoned this entirely for mass effect 2 onward and it became about character drama and cover shooter mechanics
>>23679248I missed nothing, the Super Hornet was "explicitly designed" as incremental changes from the Hornet design and the change in RCS is just a side effect from modern design choices.RCS change that don't honestly matter when you account for external payload or look up modern needs, only decades later (contract 2019) the Block III modification were meant for RCS reduction like the weapon pod and potentially installing a conformal fuel tank.You are the one talking big for someone using air-fighter to bargain that spaceship "may try stealth anyway" as if was any comparable.Airfighter have a chance at stealth.Boats have a very small chance at stealth in rather common contexts.Spaceship likely never will unless you break physics or carefully write a custom context.It's like comparing stealth being 2nd in the design considerations, with it being so far down it goes after 0G-coffee-maker.Give a SF context where you think a spaceship being slightly less observable matter and why, and we will be able to judge if it sounds credible and worth the efforts.>>23680969You seem to care a lot about telling others "who won arguments" without making any point yourself.
Space care little about aerodynamic, you can make almost any shapes as long as it is balanced for thrust.Armoring spaceship is rather futile, the most you can do is increase the chance of surviving a strike, or protect against lasers.Mass is costly, but volume is not if it is empty and sometimes spreading stuff is the best protection you can have.Explosion in space will have a weak shockwave (no air to heat and expand) and to hit a lot shrapnel have to explode further away.Hiding what's inside a big spaceship and what is its mission is a lot easier than trying to hide it or prevent localizing it with a meter precision.Therefor, I give you the perfect spaceship concept.Merry Christmas
>>23682759>the change in RCS is just a side effect from modern design choices.And I fucking wonder what informed those modern design choices, anon. I am baffled by your insistence that this wasn't a selling point, when this is a widely discussed aspect of the redesign process basically everywhere, and is pretty common in both clean sheet and product improved 4.5th gens.That the proposed Advanced Super Hornet and the actual production block 3 further improve RCS by further altering an existing design only further supports my point, that reducing observability is a useful tool in increasing survivability, even if you're not completely making yourself unobservable.You're not convincing me you missed nothing.>You are the one talking big for someone using air-fighter to bargain that spaceship "may try stealth anyway" as if was any comparable.You're the one that keeps insisting on treating it as on/off. It's not 'try stealth anyway', it's giving consideration where possible. You're probably right that in most realistic settings there's not a great deal that can be done, but that was never what I was saying.>Give a SF context where you think a spaceship being slightly less observable matter and whyWhat kind of question is this? Literally anything. Being any harder to observe, track, target, etc is always, objectively better than being more. The question is if the improvements made are worth any compromises incurred. You may note that I did not specify if I think they will be, because I'm not proposing a setting, I'm just raising the point that it's worth considering as a spectrum rather than a switch.>>23682783I'm inclined to agree on the point of concealing capabilities. Even if we assume there's a space convention saying you can't disguise yourself as a civilian or whathaveyou, making it as hard as possible to type your craft, capabilities and current status is probably still helpful.
>>23682783I think there's also considerations for actually launching the things into space. Unless you've got orbital shipyards, your ship has to eitherfit in parts inside a rocket (which means it will end up looking like the ISS with engines) or be moderately aerodynamic and launch ln its own witha bunch of boosters (and will therefore end up looking like a regular ass rocket). Only Exception I can think of are the space shuttles, but that's because they're meamh to come back down
>>23682759>"i missed nothing">spent entire post listing features of the super hornet (that are not on the hornet) while relating them to the hornet and its erathere is no backpedaling out of this one you weaselget off my board insufferable pseud
>>23682806you're wasting your breath, he won't engage in good faithno matter how explicitly you clarify, he will keep arguing against positions you never took
>>23644642What a tragedy.
>>23682806Real topic first:>You're the one that keeps insisting on treating it as on/off. It's not 'try stealth anyway', it's giving consideration where possible.To me the spectrum you talk about is so thin that as far as the warships anon want are concerned, it is a switch. It's even a switch with unpowered manned pods.So forgive me to not want to give others the false impression they can bargain with "last minute decoys will work against equal-tech missiles" or "the enemy railguns will miss me because of my clever (Cold War already solved) ECM".>What kind of question is this? Literally anything.What is in your spectrum then?I'm really not the only one saying stealth only matters in niches conditions.Too many cope-out answer "it's technically stealth" without admitting they bargain for WWII-Destroyer-in-space fantasy.Not my fault we have to fight "reasonable expectation" that are actually ridiculous.>Super-Hornet>actual production blockDid you "miss" there were around 550 S-Hornet built before? And block II was mostly radar upgrades?"In 2019, [...] contract to deliver 78 Block III Super Hornets for the Navy through fiscal 2021. The Navy plans to sign year-to-year contracts to convert all of its Block II aircraft to Block III">I fucking wonderHere are your informed design choices:"the design of the F/A-18E/F was driven by a more cautious development approach favoring incremental improvements over the F/A-18C/D, affordability, and reliability at the expense of raw performance"Improve aerodynamic? Aerodynamics shape are often also stealthier.Improve air stream in intake? SameImprove attachment for surface panels? Inevitably improve RCS because smoother.Lighter composite alloy? Less metallicNew paint? Yes.It's also how external pylons & sensor upgrades completely undo such minor improvements, hence the weapon pod.So forgive me for "talking with authority" because I just know the topic.
>>23682806>I'm inclined to agree on the point of concealing capabilities. Even if we assume there's a space convention saying you can't disguise yourself as a civilian or whathaveyou, making it as hard as possible to type your craft, capabilities and current status is probably still helpful.I confirm that I am NOT talking about "disguising the ship".Unless maybe if it just so happen most ships, cargo included, happen to hide vast interiors, use the same thrusters, keep changing shapes, and the only difference with military ships being the IFF and a cargo full of non-returnable goodies.Space warfare become a lot more exciting once you accept you shouldn't blow up everything and what it implies: lot of moneys into finetuned strike and ships made to face crazy complicated situations because of laws and regulation.>>23682813Indeed. You don't build warship if you have no infrastructure worth defending up there, or no way to maintain it.For now we only fight with satellites. Even once we get people up there (and for what reason?) I expect us to keep fighting using smarter and smarter drones for a while.There's no big reason to fight over asteroids because it's easier to just tag first and win economically.It will take a while before we get to find something physical worth fighting for, Mars is not interesting, the Moon is vast and it will take a while before anyone can exploit resources down another gravity field.
>>23684359>Did you "miss" there were around 550 S-Hornet built before? And block II was mostly radar upgrades?Are you capable of reading?I'm not entirely convinced, if you somehow think the sentence there is in any possible way implying that the block 3 is the only model that was purchased. It's the Advanced Super Hornet concept that wasn't purchased, with some of the improvements making it to block 3. Once again, not convinced that you're not missing things here.I do not understand how you keep insisting shit like the s-ducts somehow being a happy stealth accident, when if you tried reading any documentation discussing the design of the Super Hornet they consistently call out reducing observability as part of the approach to airframe survivability. The fuck else do you think these cursed old slides are talking about when they refer to signature and airframe as part of the new plane's survivability?Now I want to make some terrible internal military use powerpoints for Gundam or Macross. It's a special kind of truly awful aesthetic sense.
>>23684424it's not a reading issue, he is deliberately lying to avoid admitting his mistake about the hornethe also does this when you make points he can't refute, or just ignores them (like the stealth is on or off thing)
Asteroid Juno Main Spaceport (center) and Cruiser Salamander (left).
>>23686049Sweet, are the balls on the nose some sort of turret?
>>23686053This is an illustration from the Japanese novel History of the Aerospace Force (航空宇宙軍史), and it explicitly states that the armament consists of only one laser cannon, mines, and maneuvering mines. So it's likely a mine.In the story, mines are distinguished as having almost no thrust of their own and heading toward targets solely with the velocity imparted by the mother ship, while maneuvering mines can alter their own trajectories after separating from the carrier. The Δv of maneuvering mines is not explicitly stated, but there is mention of them being able to accelerate to 100 km/s within one minute.Long-range combat in the story takes the form of projecting mines at the enemy's predicted future position and bombarding enemy ships with the fragmentation cloud formed after the mines detonate. This mine-explosion shrapnel is apparently expected to remain effective until it disperses to a radius of 1000 km.This cruiser is depicted as a high-performance vessel equipped with a remarkable fusion engine capable of sustaining 1G acceleration for days, along with numerous maneuvering mines.
>>23686080Neat. Though I have to wonder if such predictable weapons would be prsctical
>>23686049very cool style, where is this from?
>>23686049>>23686080sorry i'm retarded disregard >>23686382
>>23684424For all the troll support you have, they sure don't bring up how you didn't answer the whole "visibility spectrum being too thin on spaceship for it to matter".If it was me I would be accused of deflecting to not admit that insignificant improvement make it pointless.>Super-bugFrom the start you argue as if modifications (only brought recently by Block III) existed from the moment the first Super-bug was designed (as literally a Hornet 1.5)So I have reasons to still doubt you understand what Block evolution & retrofit are, if of good faith.Since you do not react on how pylon pretty much undo any "stealth" anyway, I have reason to think you don't know/care if it matters so long as you can imply "everything will try to be stealthy (even spaceships)".Your pic is generic stuff, signature would start with the exhaust since IR missiles and radio comm.The Typhoon is also considered to have a 0.1m2 RCS like the Super-bug and it doesn't even try to sell itself as having low RCS.https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm>I do not understand how you keep insisting shit like the s-ducts somehow being a happy stealth accidentDo you agree "s-duct" exist without stealth being a consideration?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-ductIt's literally just a way to redirect the airstream.And why would you do that for a CARRIER-fighter? It make it smaller, easier to store, been S-duct since the Hornet.It's only later we realized it help for stealth too, the Hornet showed Fewer blades than the Super.Bigger rectangular intake are mostly for the stronger engines, above Mach speed you need to break shockwaves fucking up air-compression, that shape, can also help reducing RCS.>>23684571>(like the stealth is on or off thing)I did specifically address that one liar-kun.Are you the Orion guy who don't want to admit his nuke-riding-rocket make no sense once you account for basic practicality, infrastructure or even plain efficiency?
>>23686690The Typhoon is, like most 4.5th gens, commonly discussed as being lower RCS than older jets. It's a selling point. It's an explicit design consideration in all of them. Which is my point.>From the start you argue as if modifications (only brought recently by Block III) existed from the moment the first Super-bug was designedI never claimed the block 3 was the initial production run. You googled 'super hornet stealth' in a blind panic and found mention of the block 3 making further changes, assumed those were the only 'stealthy' design decisions at any point, then tried to win an argument on a technicality.What makes this even more bizarre is that my initial point, 'newer versions of plane make adjustments to be stealthier', isn't predicated on if it was the original production run or not. Conceding that the block 3 does it means you're conceding my actual point, dumbass. You've dragged this so far off topic it's unreal.>PylonsDo you think pylons somehow cancel out the lower RCS of the aircraft? That's not the own you think it is, I thought it was so self-explanatory that it didn't really need addressing. No fucking shit external stores are also visible, but the aircraft they're mounted to being harder to observe still means net less return.An F-35A carrying external stores is going to have a smaller return than those same weapons hanging off an F-15E. It doesn't 'undo' the aircraft. Not on/off.>S-ductsYou're right about them being present on the legacy bug, I probably should've been more precise. The original design's are a significantly straighter shot back to the turbines.Now, look at your own link, and tell me if you think it's plausible that it was an accident that the bigger, newer redesign of the plane just happened to make all the right changes to end up with a significantly smaller RCS than the original airframe. Does it make more sense that this was pure blind luck, or just maybe, that someone was thinking about RCS a little?
>>23686690>>23686707I almost forgot, you absolutely just googled it quickly because you got parts of the Advanced Super Hornet proposal mixed up with the production block 3.
>>23686690>if you point out my bad behavior you're an organized troll>if you point out my bad behavior you're a samefag from earlier>if i said that people would point out my bad behavior like they've been doingmaybe it's just you, and not everyone else in the thread?
>>23686707First, I'll remind you brought up the S-hornet >>23678030 to suggest (space) vehicle would (try to) minimize visibility anyway.I tried my best to make it relate to the topic, despite how space-stealth discussion is plagued by superficial comparison.You accuse me of "dragging this on" when you are the one now completely giving up the topic (or telling what you'd consider a "spectrum" in space stealth), all to "beat me over technicalities" you just failed to pass yourself.You accuse me of googling stuff? Now I suspect you only read s-duct as a stealth thing and didn't know it was already normal on the Hornet.What next? Act as if I said 70s fighters never care for stealth? I'm not the one shitting up the thread.>my actual pointI said that air-fighter (and even boats) have a context that still allows some stealth,I acknowledged that you didn't mean "all or nothing" but pointed out as far as space-stealth is concerned, it is usually nothing,I explicitly explained how aerodynamic improvements usually improve stealth,I brought up first >>23682759 the S-Hornet had RCS upgrade by Block III so it's more like you trying to downplay your "consciously designed" into "whatever, so long as RCS went down I win".My only fault is not making you understand why the Super-Hornet being 80% a bigger Hornet, means RCS was so far down the design list it's laughable.Or not ignoring your mistake with rolling eye, to insist on the topic.>Do you think pylons somehow cancel out the lower RCS of the aircraft?No "somehow" here, external weapons geometry can be more than double a non-stealth airframe RCS.>F-35It was built specifically to stealthily drop nukes from internal bays.Tons of real effort to go from average 0.1 to 0.005 and with external load it's back to what modern radars and missiles are already used to.>>23686711>ASH proposal mixed upGo ahead and list them. The conformal tanks remain an option >>23682759 and the weapon pod is in service.
>>23687715>my only fault was not being even more condescending while still being wrong>i'm not shitting up the thread, it's everyone else who keeps giving me the same feedback
>>23687715>Tons of real effort to go from average 0.1 to 0.005 and with external load it's back to what modern radars and missiles are already used to.And after all of this back and forth bullshit you still demonstrate an inability to comprehend the underlying point. At least not consistently between two paragraphs in your post.Fucking astonishing.
>>23687715>the weapon pod is in service.The low RCS container? If you can find a single source for that that isn't incorrectly quoting the ASH proposal I'd love to see it. I haven't seen a single credible source referring to the adopted block 3 model as featuring it, nor photos, nor the USN jumping up and down about their cool new toy. The new IRST pod is of course, but that's not the same thing.>The conformal fuel tank remains an optionIn other words, wasn't part of the upgrade.
did the esl pseud finally give up and fuck off?couldn't talk his way out of this one i guess loltoo bad about the thread though
>>23693051Maybe let a dying thread actually die.
>>23693072no need to get upset, bud
>>23688047Even more so than the conformal tanks Navy wanted (before giving up testing it), it's payload, both exist and were tested.It is funny how you now reject Block 3 carrying EWP or CFT when they are essentially the only addition that can be called an honest intent to reduce RCS.2023 https://theaviationgeekclub.com/chief-petty-officer-explains-why-the-us-navy-gave-up-plans-to-fit-conformal-fuel-tanks-on-its-f-a-18-super-hornet-fleet/2021 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/navys-new-super-hornets-are-ready-soar-194893Basically, you are ready to shit on your own point about "any bit of stealth mattering (space implied)" so long as you can nitpick the dumbest shit. Strange hill to die upon.>>23693051Happy new year to you, anon.>>23687918>>23688039>can't answer>insult&projectionAnyone would sound condescending with a low effort troll around, so mad, so desperate to save face.Take more effort choosing a pic for the thread than answering your childish "gotyou!".
>>23694884>projecting>desperate to save facelmao
>>23633544
>>23694884>2023Says the USN gave up on it, in other words, didn't decide to use it.>2021If you actually click through to the press release being reported on it doesn't mention either the pods or the CFTs, everything else is National Interest incorrectly filling in context.Not beating the allegations that you aren't reading shit if you think 'tested and passed on' means 'in service'.
>>23694927Now that we have proven that rocket can land vertically without too much effort, SSTO rocket become worth the loss of efficiency.The problem with gas core reactor is that you can't use an open-cycle because of radiation, and closed-cycle become immediately far less powerful and heavier.
>>23697550I'm not the one who defended it as trying to reduce RCS so you basically support my own points with your interpretation.Despite developing & testing system that truly reduce RCS, they just considered making an old unfit design "less observable" was just not useful.As spaceship goes, functionality and modularity would be far more useful than attempting to hide anything (other than the ship content).Modular thrusters, modular system, being able to move payloads of any size,Spreading with equipment mast so you can add drop tank without blocking any system,Again, if anyone want space-stealth it's easier writing it as a niche>independent moon-station "venezulio", useful place to reffil propellant>park your ships nearby in a way that make attack suicidal>deploy your stealth-missiles/pods with pre-cooled at 3°K exterior, cold-propulsion, the hangar door opening hidden by low-scale metamerial lensing or liquid nanomachine fuckery worth more than most ship>momentarily hack the station systems to kidnap a GMOdrug lord just to show you can
>>23698623Could you realistically get that close without crashing to one of Uranus' moons? Feels like the gravity would be too much even on those tiny rocks
>>23698623>you basically support my own points with your interpretation.I am literally just pointing out shit you were wrong about. Not everything is about point scoring.>they just considered making an old unfit design "less observable" was just not usefulOr they felt that they already had benefits from the improved design and material choices and the external pods weren't currently worth the trouble. You seem to be mistaking 'made harder to target/hit than before' for 'made into a stealth fighter' and I really don't know why.But I'm also kind of tired of this digression at this point, it's just chewing up the thread and we're clearly not getting any closer to an agreement.I do like the stealth missile idea though. Modern IR seeker heads are already actively cooled so it also works as kind of an extension of that.Depending on how many eyes out your target has you might not even need a concealed bay, just orient your bay away and quietly kick a few out.Could make for a nasty surprise attack too. Dump them out somewhere on a useful trajectory configured to boot up and hit a target an hour from now.Though now I'm thinking if in a setting where IR seekers are common it might not be possible to have an emergency active cooling system as part of your survivability onion. Orient nose towards incoming for smallest profile, move into position/turn on cold plates, shit out flares/decoys with dazzlers/your pants/etc.
>>23698775...and I wasn't wrong about any of that. both (truly) RCS reducing system exist for this block and yet they didn't care to use them.Don't talk about "point scoring" when you pretty much backpedaled on your "every bit of stealth matter" solely to get me wrong over a technicality>You seem to be mistaking 'made harder to target/hit than before' for 'made into a stealth fighter' and I really don't know why.As today technology goes the only way to not be targeted/hit involve not being seen or out of range. Modern missiles down to Manpad can ignore flare & chaff. The only reason they keep those is for all potential opponents incapable of making such missiles.>But I'm also kind of tired of this digression at this point, it's just chewing up the thread and we're clearly not getting any closer to an agreement.We can agree fully on this.
>>23698775>I do like the stealth missile idea though.Just to be clear, this only work in the context of "space battles somehow happen at extremely short range" (an offshoot of prior ideas).Any hot propulsion would instantly reveal its trajectoryAny distance would prevent maintaining "stealth" long enough to avoid perfect tracking from any basic sensors.Given future-space-tech level, I would expect future-AI constantly looking at the entire spectrum instead of just waiting for an Infrared spike.Flare/jamming/decoy won't work to protect anything that need hot maneuver or manned, worth any sophisticated missiles with memory, see >>23675440.Even if the missiles itself don't possess every sensor, you need to disable everything it can communicate with that can passively guide it.>Modern IR seeker heads are already actively cooled so it also works as kind of an extension of that.Cooling produce heat, when I said pre-cooled I meant the carrier-ship produce the heat to cool the pod/missile.>Depending on how many eyes out your target has you might not even need a concealed bay, just orient your bay away and quietly kick a few out.As I see my context, the movement alone would make it suspicious, a sensor cloud would be cheap, attacking sensors will betray your intent and then you need to cross distance before any backup/hidden sensors activate.Even the old "just make your stealth-pod exit hidden behind a routine-pod" is out IMO, I would imagine AI detecting the slightest sign of activity.My (uninspired) context was basically: "Cross a very short range using a pod-sized hydrogen-steamer, putting unbelievable sophistication into hiding its launch from a weaker & conveniently isolated enemy station, with spies & smuggled nano-devices ready to disable defense you know the position of."Because any "Oops, we missed a sensor & a laser" could instantly defeat such attempt, and if you destroy too much, your carrier-ship won't survive/escape any counter-attack.
>>23698688Uranus has a lot of moon. One of the "major moon" Miranda has a gravity as low as 0.07g (Earth moon is 0.1g)Other moon don't even have their gravity mentioned on wikipedia (as if it was too low to matter)Almost no different from being close to an asteroid.So I'd bet on "yes", but it wouldn't maintain this position cheaply without being in orbit.If the hose on the picture was a support structure, now it wouldn't take much effort to fight the gravity.
>>23701038The CGI don't look that good
how do you even justify space fighters anymore?you can't send them anywhere as far as the moon,sending them WW2 style like in movies will only get them killed,if you just use them like mobile turrets, there's no point giving them a crew unless they fly far enough for lag to matter, bringing us back to the first pointfinally, giving them nuclear propulsion and life support just make them space frigate with a very small crew
>>23705712Mass Effect had them as a dodge to a naval treaty, which was cute. TECHNICALLY all those missiles you're flinging belong to independent and unregulated manned craft, not the host ship, so it doesn't count against the tonnage tally.
>>23705798Difficult to justify since they already have highly mobile motherships with better shield, weapons, and inertial canceller.>>23705712>how do you even justify space fighters anymore?Glorified police car and precise strike in a setting where you really don't want to nuke everything.1) A mafia is getting around customs by sending drones that attach to cargoship so they aren't detected as debris and get a free ride, some cargoship are accomplice and pretend to not notice, to catch them police can't send a warship each time, so they send the smallest craft they can2) Assaulting a lunar space elevator, no one want to damage it, assault-ships are deadly afraid of crashing into it, space fighters are sent to disable the boarding pods, protect airlock or systems from hacking3) The space-colonies have declared independence and control of a fleet of autonomous cargo ships, designed to make it impossible to hack them without physical access.Both side are trying to prevent escalation.Noble-anarchist disabling a manned fighter to prevent hijack of their nuclear cargo-ship? Honorable.Evil-democracy permanently disabling food supply? Despicable war-crime.4) Terrorists send virus via nanomachines jumping between unaware mules until they hack something, polices need fast fighters to disable whatever they hacked, in a way that leave evidences.5) The Moon is covered with gigantic inflatable greenhouses, politic make it a contested area but it's not hard to enter what's basically continent-sized balloons. Outside fights are limited to sub-orbital impact so debris come to a rest. Everyone try to take control of stuff inside without popping the balloons, they improvise space-fighters that turn into agile air-fighter inside.It's hard to get ideas that would also be fun to watch.
>>23705712>space frigate with a very small crewthis is the answer
>>23706026>difficult to justifythe whole point is it's justified by the legal restriction, not the capabilities of the carrier or fighters
>>23706054Law can only do so much if there's no good reasons, enforcement or incentives behind.
>>23706226You have discovered the concept of a fictional setting being used to shape and justify the events within it, good job.
>>23706226not sure what you mean by this postclearly in this setting there is enforcement or incentive because they do use fighters in response to the law
>>23705712>just make them space frigate with a very small crewLike that but just 1/2 people, everything else can be dumb robots and AI
>>23706576>not sure what you mean by this postMass Effect is soft-SF so it's all make-believe in the first place, same as "energy shield" and "disruptors torpedo" to try to mimic WWII-fighters.Take ME2 speech about stray bullet, realistically space debris can be deadlier than the weapon, so shooting anything in orbit can be treated as a nuclear option.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLpgxry542M>>23706548A setting hinging only on silly laws is dumb, that's the point yes.If you want to justify a big paradigm you are better justifying it with physical laws and strict engineering limitations.
>>23707300>total non-sequitur responsejeez anon you don't have to argue just for the sake of arguing, that's sad
