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
