/sci/ - Science & Math

well, a general misconception is that space is dope when in all reality it is dope as heck.

>>6004297
True.

Are you me?
Cause ive basically been were you are now a little while ago.

Here is a list:
(basic shit pertains to physics)
#1 Space is not cold
#2 No sound
(In relation to combat)
#3 Shit over heats fast, no major holly wood ships have radiators(The IFV venture star from avatar does, as does the TIE fighter, but neither of which are mentioned nor even looked at and the tie fighter was later ret-coned and called energy condensers or something.)
#4 Fighters make no sense, as space battleships operate in the same medium as them and with bigger stronger engines would actually logically go faster than the fighters, all the while carrying better weaponry and armor
#5 Ships always engage in close quarters combat when this is completely retarded, space is space, you could fire a lazer from millions of miles away.
#6 explosions work but look like bright expanding spheres not billowing fiery clouds(no atmosphere).
#7 nukes are useless unless used in close range(assuming your space craft has basic radiation shielding), like wise conventional ballistics don't move fast enough to actually hit shit.
#8 missiles are fare if they move fast enough or you launch enough of them to make it to the enemy vessel before they can shoot them down.
#9 holly wood battleships/space craft always have a bridge/cockpit this is a stupid target for the enemy to easily find as well as letting lethal radiation pour in through massive scenic windows.
#9 ships do not have to strafe nor constantly run their engine in order to move. Space is friction-less, as well as the over heat thing
#10 having weapons on only the "up" side of your ship is retarded, since direction is irrelevant the enemy could attack from any angle.
One last thing, if you have a warp drive that can bend space itself, why not use it like a weapon?

>>6004341
>#5 Ships always engage in close quarters combat when this is completely retarded, space is space, you could fire a lazer from millions of miles away.
this always bugged the shit out of me when fantasizing about space battles.

Assuming lazers are powerful enough in the future, it would basically be a game of "who can hit the fire button first", and from huge distances where they would never even physically see each other.

>>6004348
>Hit the fire button.

Niggah you not using quantum A.I. that can detect, target and fire almost as fast as the lazer itself.

>>6004296
If you want a quick crash course in how utterly stupid the common portrayals of space flight and warfare are in movies and fiction, go grab a copy of Kerbal Space Program. It will be very rewarding, trust me.

>>6004348
Yup. Lasers are already that powerful, and in space they of course don't diffuse. It's just a question of having fine enough targeting control.

>>6004341
#4: actually, inertia is still a very big thing even in a vacuum, so having lots of smaller ships with low mass would still be much more maneuverable and handy. Especially with attitude adjustment. Reaction wheels just don't scale well for big massive ships.

As for your last thing with the warp drive being used as a weapon, good point... It could also be the perfect shield, too. I always wondered why they used a deflector shield on star trek when they could presumably just bend space so that any energy weapon just bent around the hull of the ship.

>>6004378
>As for your last thing with the warp drive being used as a weapon, good point... It could also be the perfect shield, too. I always wondered why they used a deflector shield on star trek when they could presumably just bend space so that any energy weapon just bent around the hull of the ship.

Ha! Never thought about that one, but you're right. Generally I suppose a wrap drive would leave a line of destruction everywhere it passes through, so maybe you just need some missles flying pass other ships.

>how should a somewhat realistic portrayal look like in your opinion?

Pretty much exactly like this.

Would make sense to catapult asteroids?

>>6004390
If the asteroids had a fuckton of magnetic metals in them and was launched by a huge rail cannon, yes. Simply using the conventional medieval catapult is unfeasible since there's no gravity.

I know im wrong somewhere in that statement, just can't think hard enough.

>>6004396
Maybe you could give them a spin and just release it in the right moment. I imagine something looking a bit like a rotating stick.

The perfect wartime spaceship would be a gun, an engine, and a computer, as tiny as you could make it. Make a million of them and scatter them all over the place.

Fuck shit up.

>>6004421
So basically "human" wave tactics in space?

>>6004341
>#4
you took physics right?

bump

>>6004459
Yes but what i was trying to point out was that space fighters and space battleships aren't the same thing as air fighters and carriers.