[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 864 KB, 4288x2929, 1280535408144.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1525026 No.1525026 [Reply] [Original]

If we design combat ships in the future (for space), would they be massive, or would they be very "small" ships, about the size of the space shuttle?

>> No.1525035

>>1525026
The first space "warships" will be unmanned weapon platforms. They will mainly be a tool of policy enforcement then physical conquest.

>> No.1525040

there's no stealth in space. so the bigger is the ship, the easier it is to find.

so i guess we'd have giant orbital platforms for defense, and tiny killbots for offense.

>> No.1525098

>>1525040
What?

I was under the impression that current "stealth" based planes/marine vessels were so named because it is difficult to locate them using radar, not because they are small. Radar still works in space (its a good thing, too)

>> No.1525150
File: 146 KB, 720x1284, 1280296609294.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1525150

pic related

>> No.1525163

>>1525098
Aye, and stealth in space is impossible due to it having nothing to get in the way of any emission from any vehicle, and every vehicle needing to emit vast amounts of heat to continue working. So mentioning stealth in space in positive or negative is silly.

>> No.1525167
File: 56 KB, 458x319, 1278476276512.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1525167

>>1525098

>Stealth in space

>> No.1525178

>>1525098
stealth simply doesn't work in space because there's no way to hide your waste heat. your ship will stick out like a sore thumb against cosmic background in infrared spectrum.

so the only option to make your ship less detectable is to reduce it's size and heat output.

>> No.1525214

>>1525178
Considering we were mistaking cold, dead, cofee table sized rocks for planets in the 1800s, AND in the 1800s we developed the technology and methods to determine their actual size and shape... what makes you think you can somehow best 1800s optical tech? Then after you've managed that, let's update that to 1990s astronomy gear, think you can beat that? Now imagine just what we'll have ready to monitor the sky around the time we'd bother putting a weapon up there... no, stealth in space is so impossible, you're not going to help anything by doing anything. "I'll make the ship smaller to make it harder to see" is absolute fucking bullshit. What, you're gonna make weapon platforms smaller than coffee tables but are indistinguishable from rocks? Just what the fuck are you thinking? Stop that right now.

>> No.1525247

If we get big ships, they need to have at least 2 "big" weapons

i hate seeing these gigantic 403674456456 mile long ships whose biggest weapons are the size of school buses

>> No.1525272

>>1525178
or to have the hull emit the same ambiant radiation as the rest of space and produce very little heat. it could be done by circulating semi radioactive liquid through pipes on the outter hull and have heavy armour plating/radiation shielding underneath. And if you used stealth tech for the shape of the hull it'd be radar-proof that way it could be HUGE, like "Battlestar Galactica" size. What you guise think? anything to add?

>> No.1525275
File: 359 KB, 640x433, Battle Barge.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1525275

They need to be built like this

>> No.1525281

>>1525247
Agreed. Sci-fi writers have no sense of scale. There is a LOT of firepower you can pack into just 300 meters with todays tech. Imagine what you could if you had a fusion drive. Imagine a 300 meter cannon through the spine of the ship tapping what is essentially a city's power plant for it's destructive force. Now that is one hell of a gun.

>> No.1525294

>>1525272
You're a troll.

>> No.1525305

>>1525281
agreed

Maybe have some ships with cannons running the entire length of the ship, then have them fill support roles

>> No.1525311

>>1525294
hey fcuk you i was serious. plus if you're that huge who needs stealth

>> No.1525320

For the stealth discussion, maybe take ideas from mass effect?

>> No.1525326

>>1525311
>If you're that huge who needs stealth

Now you're talking. Drop the stealth ideas, put the cash into more guns.

>> No.1525331

>>1525281
I really have no idea, but is it possible that attaching overly large guns would be bad? You are going to need some big stabilization engines and thrusters to keep the spacecraft from moving every time you shoot.

>> No.1525372

>>1525272
>or to have the hull emit the same ambiant radiation as the rest of space
lol'd @ startrek physics

>> No.1525383

>>1525281
>Sci-fi writers have no sense of scale
>imagine a cannon
lol.
imagine a bullet travelling months to it's target.

>> No.1525392

Third stealth in space thread today. This needs an image macro.

>> No.1525409

>>1525331
Nah, it'd be no problem. The power of the gun would create recoil anywhere from "we only know it changed our course at all because our nav computers are accurate to 6 decimal places" to "Wow, that was like firing the engine in reverse for a couple seconds. Make sure to compensate with stabilizing burns after each shot, get on it!"

It'll be fine.

>> No.1525412

>>1525383
>imagine a troll

>> No.1525418

OP here
Where the fuck did my thread go? I posted asking about the size of ships, not for stealth, but for how much it would cost and the size of weapons you could mount.
Get rid of the fucking stealth ideas, it's not going to happen

>> No.1525420

guided missiles with some modifications for space warfare, would they be effective?

>> No.1525421

>>1525412
why troll? do you have any idea what detection ranges would be like in space?

>> No.1525423

Look at the evolution of warships at sea. Battleships are history, but aircraft carriers, the biggest ships of all, play a leading/central role in naval power.

>> No.1525425

Large "carriers" carrying around multitudes of small "fighters" that fly around like airplanes just won't happen. Ever. Sorry, sci-fi fans.

I firmly believe that space battles, if they even happen, will be between huge fucking ships with huge fucking guns. Why bother swarming a target with mosquitos when you can just flat out destroy the sumbitch?

>> No.1525438

>>1525418
space warfare is like submarine warfare. a visible ship is a dead ship. but unlike submarine, a ship can't hide in open space

>> No.1525444

>no stealth in space.

bitches dont know about my asteroid fields and hiding in deep craters on moons. in deep space you might have trouble in deep space but if you can get to deep i am going to assume you can manipulate space/time. If that is the case them warp the space around your ship (think gravitational lensing)

>> No.1525447

>>1525425

Now, carriers sending fighters into ATMOSPHERE is another thing entirely.

>> No.1525448

I think space combat will be about out running missles, not being stealthy.

>> No.1525451

>>1525421
Detection range does not equal combat range. Also, do not infer or imply that cannon can only mean "no more advanced than ww2 tech chem propellant shells". Whatever the propellant, the only implication is "tube fires something using something".

>> No.1525453

>>1525425
because with nukes, one hit = one kill. and it's sure as hell hard to hit a swarm of mosquitos.

>> No.1525458

>>1525444
implying a large ship would be maneuverable enough to do that

>> No.1525463

>>1525444

You're talking as if there will only be visual detection in space.

>> No.1525466

>>1525425
they will be carriers but they will be carrying expendable drones not human fighters. They will overwhelm a ship's point defenses while the other ships pound away at it. Drones will be able to patrol the fleet's perimeter

>> No.1525468

>>1525444
wouldnt the gravatational warping cause an anomaly?

>> No.1525480

>>1525453
>using nukes in space warfare.
In space they are essentially EMP bombs. nothing more

>> No.1525486

More than likely the best type would be small unmanned fighter ships. May the best programmer win!

>> No.1525490

>>1525466 patrol the fleet's perimeter

What's the fucking point? You can't surprise a fleet.

Space combat is going to be very fucking boring without FTL...

>> No.1525495

>>1525486
Theres the possibility that a large ships armor would be so thick that it could ignore those altogether

>> No.1525501

>>1525468
Never said it was a perfect system. If you can do warpspace then stealth is a joke. all attacks will be hit and run with small drones doing the scouting

>> No.1525506

Ok guys, space combat will be an orbital affair. Why would anyone fight in deep space? You fight over strategic resources and chock points. So it will probably be surface bombardiers with inceptor escorts. An inceptors strength here would be massive speed, so it can respond to missiles and defending planetary ships attacking the bombardiers before they can be reached. In space your "stealth" is distance. If so kind of FTL is in use, then being a light hour away from sometime looking for you is enough to not be detected by emissions or projections.

>> No.1525518

>>1525444
>asteroid fields

They're nowhere near as dense as you see in the movies.

>>1525272

whatthefuckamireading.arj

>> No.1525524

>>1525506
what about deep space facilities?

>> No.1525529

>>1525453

A ship small and light enough to be so maneuverable as to not be hit by weapons couldn't possibly be armed heavily enough to destroy a large ship, even in swarms.

They would also be COMPLEX mother fuckers, literally covered in trusters to allow them to move like you see in Star Wars. Not to mention that thrusters require fuel, which also adds to the size and weight.

>> No.1525531

>>1525524
Chock point, strategic resource, bombardment.

>> No.1525533

>>1525468
Oh don't even bother with space warp dude, he thinks he can hide in an "asteroid field", despite nothing like that existing in real life. The average distance of rocks in the asteroid belt we have is hundreds of kilometers. Everywhere else in the solar system the rocks are smaller and even more spread out. And remember, 1800s tech we mistook those rocks for planets. STILL 1800s and we accurately determined their size, position, shape, and movement. Present day we can view the whole EM spectrum and we know what these rocks are made of. By the time we have space warships, hiding in rock would do, what... nothing? We can still count every individual person on your ship AND look up his files based on his personal heat signature alone... God damn, I can e-mail the captain and make fun of his dick size, meanwhile all he knows is my signal came from at least ONE of the com networks in the solar system, but i could be in a bunker on any planet... I have him surrounded with worlds while he is on the asteroid belt entirely visible.

>> No.1525534

>>1525480
>implying nukes don't produce energy in space
what?

there won't be any shockwave, but a fuckload of gamma rays and other nasty shit

>> No.1525543

>>1525506
>implying one can capture a planet.
its the ultimate fortress. 360 degress of protection. every surface feature can become a potential space weapon.

The only way to defeat a planet is to just send asteroids its way till its nothing but an ocean of lava

>> No.1525544

>>1525518
More importantly, they aren't moving around so much relative to each other.

>> No.1525557

Not to mention, if said planet has a moon, the moon could be a gigantic weapons platform

>> No.1525560

>>1525543
Why not drop troopers onto the surface of the planet?

If we get to the point where we have multiple planets colonized, im assuming that we have enough soldiers to chuck at them.

>> No.1525564

>>1525543
What? No. Responding to threats from space with surface weapons is stupid. They would be slow, clumsy, large, and so easy to avoid. Were as surface bombardment of key cities and military bases would quickly subdue a planet.

>> No.1525567

>>1525533
About halfway in niggajustwentfullretart.jpg

>> No.1525572

>>1525534

Inverse square law makes the gamma burst a non-issue from rapid falloff. If you could get the nuke close enough to kill with the gamma burst, you could have ruined their day with a cheap mass driver slug instead.

>> No.1525591

Most large scale space weapons will be like particle accelerators. They will produce streams of particles moving near the speed of light. They would cut ships up like a hot knife.

>> No.1525593

>>1525564
And what exactly makes you think that they'd be clumsy?

If i took time to set up ground defenses, i would make sure that they were effective

>> No.1525596

>>1525543
Best way to take over a planet, take out those defenses. There may be no hiding, but there is always other methods.

One, false flag. Economic warfare with Regula was fun, but multiplayer SIMPlanet is over... that last shipment of cargo pods was troop ships, your planet is now strewn with my soldiers and your planetary defenses are unreliable, warfleet is on the way. Surrender now, you will not have the infrastructure to keep defenses working by the time they arrive.

Two, overwhelming firepower. We told Regula we were sick of their shit a decade ago when we cut ties to them. In that time we have assembled a grand fleet of warships. It will all launch at once, and consist of two waves. Wave one is the bombardiers, wave two is the ships with our main guns and troops on them. The bombardiers are unmanned weapon platforms. At the "braking maneuver stage" the bombardiers accelerate, increasing speed instead of matching for orbital velocity. They will rain down firepower at incredible speeds and smack their spent hulks into key positions across that world. This initial bombardment will have Regula softened for the incoming warships just behind them and coming into orbit. These warships will be demanding surrender as they finish bombardment of the area and begin dropping off troops.

Those are my two favorite options.

>> No.1525617

>>1525596
You're forgetting that the planet may have a defense fleet, and that regula may have a grand fleet of its own on standby

>> No.1525619

>>1525272
>produce very little heat
That rules out all interesting spaceships. If it is to make little heat, it must:
Never maneuver.
Never use large amounts of power for anything
Rarely use communication systems

>> No.1525627

>>1525572

>mass driver

I think mass drivers will be the main weapon. There's a great possibility that warships in space will be nothing more than manned, mobile cannons.

Fuck what you read about in the Halo books, which is a big warship with a cannon incorporated into it. The ship will BE a cannon, and not much else.

>> No.1525629

>>1525593
What exactly are you thinking of when we talk about surface to orbit weapons? Lasers? no way, atmosphere makes that prohibitive. Mass drivers? Fires in straight lines, loses huge amounts of time and energy escaping planets gravity? Missles? Hitting a space ship with something the size of the space shuttle, that doesn't wanna be hit. Mean while, orbital bombardiers have nuked all of your launching centers. A military base can't dodge a missile.

>> No.1525634

>>1525418
>Where the fuck did my thread go? I posted asking about the size of ships, not for stealth, but for how much it would cost and the size of weapons you could mount.
Size depends on economics, bro. If we were to have space wars in the next century you'd be looking at:

Instant total ship destruction at long range
Total area denial with gravel patches
Small or experimental ships
Little ship defense

>> No.1525639

>>1525617
Oh god you're right. When talking about attacking a planet's defenses, how could I have forgotten about the planet's defenses! Oh silly me!

...Captcha looks like a picture of a duck, I have no "duck key" ... fuck you, captcha.

>> No.1525645

>>1525593
There is no way to make them otherwise. Let's say that you want to shoot down a spaceship. Your radar has to reach 100 miles just to leave the atmosphere, you can't move your Space Defense Fort very far, and I can drop rocks on you.

>> No.1525650

>>1525543
>every surface feature can become a potential space weapon.
What? Anyway, it'd be a siege. A planet can feed itself, unless you intervene...

>> No.1525654

Any existing theories on how space ships could be shielded, or if they could be at all?

>> No.1525658

>>1525634
Exactly, really the initial post had too many assumptions. Calling the space shuttle small? How about a ten ton kill vehicle the size of a forklift? That is pretty small. Or the 300 meter guns we spoke of, that'd ruin the space shuttle's day but have a hard time with the smaller unmanned kill vehicle as it launched coin sized projectiles to puncture and disable the 300 meter gun. Warfare in space is going to be many levels of crazy.

>> No.1525661

>>1525645
underground facilities
your ideas shrivel REAALLL fast

>> No.1525665

>>1525654
Chafe. Same way air planes are shielded.

>> No.1525670

>>1525654
Depends on what we are up against, and what we are shielding, et cetera... Whipple shields are a good bet in most cases.

>> No.1525680

>>1525654
whipple shields against projectiles
ablative shields against energy weapons

>> No.1525681

>>1525661
Under ground bases still have to have surface features to launch with. So if the personal is safe 5 miles down, the launchers are still nuked to hell and back.

>> No.1525706

>>1525629
>Lasers?

Yeah, those work much better firing out of the atmosphere than into or through it, and without having to build a ship but getting to put the entire budget into guns, you can have overwhelming laser firepower.
>Mass drivers
Fuck yeah. Tapping the equivalent of a city power plant We can fill the sky in your area with steel in less than four seconds. Still cheaper than a warship for much, much more firepower.
>Missiles
Fuck yes. Just send up the guns and chase you down. Plus, unlike Lasers and Mass Drivers they depend LESS on fixed facilities. A "Planetary defense missile" is basically going to be an unmanned, disposable weapon platform. Takes a bit long to get up there, but you can either deal with it and get shot by something else, or ignore it and let it come up and kill you with, again, more firepower than you have because you had to build an entire ship to bring your firepower.

Protip, planetary defenses need no ships, need no radiator systems, need no propellant, they need nothing. Put your resources into planetary defenses and kilo for kilo your defenses WILL have more firepower than any incoming fleet.

>> No.1525714

>>1525706
And just to be sure, that's "kilo for kilo". Don't come crying to me if the enemy brought more kilos.

>> No.1525717
File: 114 KB, 400x306, swordfish-ii_400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1525717

if they don't look like my pic, i'll be furious

>> No.1525721

>>1525706

Fleet lobs asteroids at your installations and stays out of your range.
They'll take a week to reach you but you still can't do anything about it.

>> No.1525722

Some of you may hate me for saying it

But the spaceship used in Avatar was pretty neat.

>> No.1525730

>>1525721
Planet applies more energy to them and lobs them right the fuck back. Now what? You wanna play tennis or you want to go to war? Rocks are not free citizen.

>> No.1525737

>>1525717

We can make them look like that. Shape and color is no freaking problem, dude, we can totally make them look like that.

>> No.1525740

>>1525706
All this is fine, great even. But my trump card is that sieging space ships don't even need to be in orbit, they can be extremely far away so still bombard. Not to mention, asteroid wrangling. Using Earth and current technology. Place massive VASMIR drives until any number of belt objects, they could reach the earth in lets say a 2 months, accelerating the whole way, and impact with the fury of a thousand suns. Siege ships don't show up in orbit, they just go the the asteroid belt.

>> No.1525744

>>1525730
>apply more energy to them
>they break up and are pulled in by gravity
>end up eating asteroid buckshot

The invading fleet likes your plan.

>> No.1525748

>>1525737
i've been reading your posts boomer. good form. now please, tell me you know what my pic is from...

>> No.1525756

>>1525730
You gonna "apply" enough energy to stop a 10 mile asteroid that's being accelerating from the asteroid belt for the last two months and is traveling 5% the speed of light? No.

>> No.1525778

>>1525756
Ok, rockfags, check this out. You, again, are limited in your carry weight for what kind of engine you attach to these rocks. You have to worry about not only the engine, but how much of the mission budget can be rock engine and how much can be occupying warship for after the rock hits.

Meanwhile, planet sees the rock taking anywhere from a week to two months to get here. Sends a mission of 100% pure engine to intercept it, smash your engine, and send that rock right the fuck back at you and faster. Only sending it back with the same energy was being polite, you wanna play tennis the tough way, fuck you here is the rock at maximum fucking speed.

I did not send that fleet to Regula to have Regula taken from me so easily.

>> No.1525779

God this feels so stupid to ask...Would a giant focusing lens set between the Earth and the Sun, set to focus at the surface work the way I'd want it too?

captcha: define butt.

>> No.1525789

>>1525778
>mission of 100% pure engine.
> inertia
We're done here.

>> No.1525799
File: 72 KB, 500x390, EndersGame.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1525799

this thread is now about Ender's Game

picture related.

>> No.1525808

>>1525779

Wait... what exactly is the point?

>> No.1525813

>>1525808
laser like effect. Thinking burning ants.

>> No.1525821

>>1525789
Auhg, fine, "Mission is 100% rock mission. Twice the engine and interception propellant for the same price as your mission" there, happy?

>> No.1525829

>>1525813
It'd work in the sense that... yeah, it is a working thing. But what are you wanting to do with it, exactly? Just burn stuff... congrats, yeah it'll burn stuff.

>> No.1525830
File: 58 KB, 799x366, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1525830

>>1525799
In enders game shuttles are about the size as today but they are ssto and launch off an acceleration ramp then transition to ramjet before going to rocket. This is a good plan but would require tens of billions in infrastructure. Nothing we couldn't easily afford but the US dose not care about space.

Also enjoyable captcha

>> No.1525840

>>1525830
That is right, the US does not care about space. The US does not care about 30 trillion dollars worth of platinum to end the national debt, AND put the rest of the world in debt to it, AND raise the standard of living for all people with cheaper freaking everything since we now have platinum to use in all energy applications.

>> No.1525842
File: 319 KB, 1200x860, orson_scott_card_at_byu_symposium_20080216_closeup.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1525842

>>1525799
So Orson Scott Card writes a book where there's an entire planet almost entirely male aliens, which do not reproduce through sex and regularly masturbate each other. Then he starts working with an evangelical organisation to ban gay marriage.

How's the repressed homosexuality going bro.

>> No.1525850

>>1525821
No, you seem to be defending this lame idea that planetary defenses would have any value against an enemy space fleet of any kind. You come off as the kind of person who defends his original position, regardless of it's baseless premise, simply because your a stubborn, self-centered prick. Take a moment and really truly think about yourself and the kind of behavior you show. Now think about how anyone else could possibly feel any differently than the rest of us do about it. If you still think your ideas are actually logical, or has and base in real world physics, then come back to us.

>> No.1525854

>>1525748
Which pic? There was none in the post asking me to identify a pic, and following the reply string your replied to my reply of if we can build a ship that looks like the Swordfish from Cowboy Bebop. That the one?

>> No.1525863
File: 10 KB, 320x240, 1279691015705.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1525863

>>1525830
http://media.theworld.org/audio/0728201011.mp3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget#Annual_budget.2C_1958-2009

The us spends more to air condition tents in the desert (which they refuse to insulate) than they do on space.

>> No.1525869

>>1525850
>a tripfag
>stubborn, self-centered prick
is there any other kind?

>> No.1525877

>>1525850
U mad. There are ways to take over a planet, but a space fleet has no magical property making it better than planetary defenses. Planetary defenses actually have the advantage since they can spend the budget entirely on firepower, where as a space fleet has to have everything needed to carry it's firepower around. To take over a planet you must overcome this advantage. Heck, check out my earlier posts where the space fleets win. Now, unhurt your butt and try again.

>> No.1525879

>>1525869
Tripfags never have anything valuable to say. But I choose to not judge based on that. Instead, I took the body of his posts, and discovered a petty my dad can beat up your dad style argument structure.

>> No.1525880

>>1525863
Wait, on SPACE as in ALL OF NASA? Or just airconditioning in space.

>> No.1525887

>>1525880
air conditioning space. Best. Idea. Ever.

>> No.1525889

>>1525887
Yeah, the condition of the air in space is pretty bad right now.

>> No.1525893

NEVER FART IN THE ISS

>> No.1525916

>>1525880
The army spends more money to air condition tents than all the money NASA gets combined.

Sad but not really that hard to understand. Also the ISS has pretty good air circulation and filters so fart away.

>> No.1525932
File: 50 KB, 159x150, 124023038153.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1525932

>>1525863

>> No.1525939

>>1525661
>underground facilities
You can't dig underground enough. Once all of the relay/intel satellites are destroyed from long range, then ONLY hardened sensor stations (they're expensive as fuck) can be used. These will be easily found and destroyed, unless they're passive only - in which case they're blind in the day and near-blind anyway.
>>1525778
>Sends a mission of 100% pure engine to intercept it, smash your engine, and send that rock right the fuck back at you and faster.
No. First, anything launched from a planet in siege has to be surface-launched, nearly in one piece. Dicking around in orbit gets you lanced at long range, unless you constantly dodge, and then you'll be lanced from closer. Did we put gravel in retrograde orbits to make your launches more difficult? You already have to put a space combat vehicle AND a tow truck in orbit and away from there quickly, without hitting random gravel or being hit by aimed shots. You are Britain fighting a war across a long division, here it's physics instead of geography.

There is very little that can be done against something so very far away from you. Breaking a fastmoving asteroid does nothing to stop it. What would you use to divert it? You have a two-month time limit to react based on past plans. Nukes won't do it, and ramming stuff into it is hard considering that you're fighting uphill for the first 11 kps.

>> No.1525941

That's it, someone needs to make a game like Orbiter with accurate physics and scale but also includes weapons and combat. I want to test mass drivers vs nukes vs lasers vs nanotech swarms etc.

>> No.1525942

>>1525916

I'm pretty sure you can poop in them, too.
Poop away!

>> No.1525946

>since they can spend the budget entirely on firepower
Earth-based defenses are throwing rocks from the bottom of a well. You have to throw REALLY HARD to smash a gnat and you have trouble hitting people when they stand in the right places.

>> No.1525947

>>1525941
I would enjoy this game a lot. PHYSICISTS DESERVE ENTERTAINMENT TOO

>> No.1525982

>>1525947
>Implying that I'm a physicist. But still.

>> No.1525996
File: 58 KB, 300x300, death_star.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1525996

/thread over

>> No.1526002

>>1525939
Whoah, what tech level do you think we are at here? If you are arguing 20th century tech only, then you have no space warfleet and cannot even do the asteroid plan. If we are at what we know to be physically feasible like fusion tech, getting stuff off of the planet is NOT a problem. If you are arguing a fusion tech fleet against modern earth... well of course asymmetrical warfare always wins. You're "correct" in certain ways, but if you think surface to orbit is difficult, how do you have an infrastructure to even have a fleet and take the planet. And why would you want the planet anyway?

Up the tech level in your argument. Both sides have fusion, both sides have tech like the SABRE but on much larger scales. And "a planet in siege"... no, first you have to get there and siege it. The rocks are not doing that. And if you do control orbit then why are you dicking around with rocks?

>> No.1526049

It always makes me lol to read these space combat threads where people seem to think battles will be fought from great distances using missiles.

For one thing, missiles would be useless against a space warship. I mean, they're almost useless against modern surface vessels today on account of anti-missile systems, and active defenses only work better in space. The amount of energy necessary to produce a missile and carry it all the way to the battle would be enormously greater than the energy required to detect it and shoot it down with a laser.

As for long range battles, how do you think that's going to work? Considering the travel time of any sub-luminal munitions, and the fact that the target space craft can maneuver in 3 dimensions, it would be almost impossible to hit the target. I mean, you're going to have to fill thousands of cubic kilometers with shots to guarantee even one hit. Lasers would avoid this problem, but they dissipate over distances, necessitating a similarly impractical energy expenditure to fire at long ranges.

Space combat is going to be up close and personal, probably fought with railguns or short ranged energy weapons.

>> No.1526057

>>1526049
>but they dissipate over distances

Not so much in outer space bra...

>> No.1526065

>>1526002
If we're using 20th-century technology then it's eight guys in the ISS. Lame. Now if there were an economy up there, you have sufficient people for interesting things to happen...

There are two interesting questions here: Self-sufficient economic output on both sides and how unequal it can be to create an interesting war. If we assume that they have identical 'levels' of technology (whatever that means) then the physics are against the power and effectiveness of ground-based attack systems.

Let's assume kinetic-kill weapons of today's technology. It requires that Earth launch them uphill. If space war is new, there won't be many purpose-built weapons, giving the weapon advantage to the guys at the top of the hill.

Target-finding is difficult from the planet. We can barely see stars at night; much less anything not in LEO.

>> No.1526087

>>1526049
>The amount of energy necessary to produce a missile and carry it all the way to the battle would be enormously greater than the energy required to detect it and shoot it down with a laser.
"A" missile? Fill those cubic kilometers with gravel. Spaceship decoys are easy to spot, especially if they're maneuvering. Engine plumes read like a book.
>you're going to have to fill thousands of cubic kilometers with shots to guarantee even one hit.
How many shots are fired today to hit one soldier? We wouldn't be shooting packs of independently guided missiles, that's a waste of money. Fill his known trajectory with gravel to beyond what the ship's engines can accelerate to, and you guarantee a hit.

>>1526057
>Not so much in outer space bra...
Read up on laser optics. The beam spreads out. As it does, you're not so much vaporizing armor as heating it. Now, heating up your enemy can still win a battle, but it'd be slow.

>> No.1526130
File: 20 KB, 278x256, 156740.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1526130

>>1526087
I set my hands on fire all the time with the hand sanitizer when I smoke, do it on purpose but pretend to be shocked to scare people around me, also I am an attention hog

>> No.1526141

>>1526065

... no. Just no. You are not having a space war with yesterday's tech. Today's tech is too fluid a concept. "tomorrow's tech" or "what we do know we will have" is more solid ground. Yesterday's tech, used to create a space infrastructure to have a fight over... if it's too difficult to get stuff of the planet, then the planet is a waste of time and there is no "space fleet versus planet" issue. Go around the planet, let them waste their time.
Today's tech? We just announced space planes last week. Already knew they were possible. but they went from tomorrow tech to today quickly and that is just going to keep happening.
Tomorrow's tech, now we are talking. Surface to orbit is not that difficult. (continued)

>> No.1526142

>>1526141
Both attacker and defender is using a LOT of power. The planet does NOT have to use the equivalent of a space shuttle launch for every surface to orbit operation, they have fusion for crying out loud. They have enough energy to put a helicopter into space if they felt like it. Putting that thought aside, planet is having the advantage against an incoming fleet, kilo for kilo in the budget. There is no advantage to being in space. The space fleet has to spend more on propellant, radiators, life support if manned, other systems if unmanned, other systems despite being manned, et cetera. Planetary defense force... just going to spend the same resource on many, many more lasers then the warfleet is carrying. Lasers that have better range, lasers that are stronger. Don't even bother bringing up the atmosphere, they both have to shoot through it so the advantage for atmosphere goes to neither. The fleet has to spend resource on being a fleet, the defenses only have to be defenses, just the guns, and you bury them. The planet has the advantage, kilo for kilo, resource for resource, credit for credit. That is my only point, too. The fleet can still win, but it has no special properties giving it an advantage over the planet. The planet has the advantage starting out and you have to figure out how to overcome that.

>> No.1526160

>>1526087
Wow... I type all that and then see this post...
(captcha is "goaling El69.C7495", I laughed quietly to myself.)

Gravel shot will definitely do a good job fucking up orbital defenses, but be useless against planetary based systems that can much more easily defend themselves. Even without the atmosphere, they can be much better armored. They just gotta wait for the enemy to be in range.

>> No.1526168

>>1526087
>gravel
I know that, right now, space craft are very vulnerable to collisions with debris, but why do you think that would hold true for a warship?

Think about it like this:
If you shoot a rifle at the average car, the bullet's going to go right through. If you shoot a rifle at a tank or battleship, nothing happens. The bullet just bounces off.

Space warships aren't just going to be the space shuttle with guns strapped on. They're going to be armored enough to plow right through a field of gravel. Really, any vessel planning on travelling a long distance through space would have to be.

>> No.1526178

>>1526168
I assume when he speaks of a warship using gravel, he's run it through his ship's power planet, weaponized it into diamond gravel, and shot it out the mass driver for diamond gravel KKV shot.

>> No.1526185

>>1526141
>We just announced space planes last week.
Starting regular operations when? Buried ground-based guns have a limited field of fire, assuming buried guns can do much to orbit. The atmosphere does hurt worse the laser with the longest path after it - plain optics again. If your argument is that "They're the same but planets don't have to worry about life support" then you have to show those to be true.

Targeting favors the ones that don't need to use active sensors. Every time a radar station (or whatever) pings, its location is known. If it is too much trouble to the opposition, then it can be hit from stupidly far away with lasers or rocks, depending on which side is shooting. But it's barely possible to see things in low earth orbit during the day, much less getting a targeting solution. Passive sensors don't work well from this end of the atmosphere.

>> No.1526187

>>1526141
explain space planes

>> No.1526189

>>1526178
>power planet
What am I smoking, Carl Sagan? Get away from tea. I mean "power plant", his ship's awesome fusion drive.

>> No.1526222

>>1526185
The incoming ships are in perpetual day. And you are back to arguing different tech levels for both sides. To define tech levels... you are saying one side can have something that the other side cannot. Of course the one side with the better toys always wins. To put them both on the same "tech level" if the invader is at a certain distance with a certain gun and certain sensor tech, Regula should be able to to build the exact same thing. If Regula arbitrarily cannot have the same sensors or weapons, it is assyemterical warfare, the guy with the gun and eyes wins of course. I could argue "nuh uh, Regula would use ITS sensors, and the attacker has to deal with the distance TO REGULA" and so on and so forth. See how silly that gets? Either both sides get the same toys, or you are just handing victory to one side.

>> No.1526232

>>1526187
Planes, in space. My next post mentions a helicopter going to space.

>> No.1526235

>>1526168
>Space warships aren't just going to be the space shuttle with guns strapped on. They're going to be armored enough to plow right through a field of gravel. Really, any vessel planning on travelling a long distance through space would have to be.

If you go that far into the future, it's still a question of energy. Interesting spaceships will have to go pretty fast. On the other hand, that means they can launch rock-weapons (or self-guided KKVs) with devastating effects. Uninteresting spaceships wouldn't be far enough along the technological curve to shrug off rifle shots.

>>1526178
>weaponized it into diamond gravel,

Why bother? If you hit a modern battle tank with a rock going at 10 miles per second, it's five times its weight in dynamite. Fortunately the armor's weaker on top...

>> No.1526252

>>1526222
>the same sensors or weapons,
I think you are ignoring where I repeatedly say that "With the same xxxxxx, Earth's atmosphere punishes the one at the bottom."

>> No.1526257

>>1526222
>if the invader is at a certain distance with a certain gun and certain sensor tech, Regula should be able to to build the exact same thing
So if we have the exact same visual acuity, you can see me across a campfire just as well as I can see you when I'm far from it.

>> No.1526284

>>1526235
If it's the nice foamy carbon you normally find in space, that's dynamite foam being disperse harmlessly on the civilian ships. It might temporarily bother the passengers and cause the Regulan government to issue the attackers a noise complaint, but just about everyone is building their ships with layers of carbon nanotube fibers at this point. Even if they weren't, dynamite does nothing to MODERN tank armor if it's not focused enough. So by not weaponizing that gravel and using actual fucking gravel... not only are civilian ships unharmed, you couldn't take on WW2 tanks.

>> No.1526294

>>1526252
>>1526257
No, that is not how it works. Both have to see through the same atmosphere. There is no magic property making it easier to see the ground than it is to see the sky. And the campfire analogy is effective, but not the situation. We have occlusion filters today that make that problem non existent.

>> No.1526296

>>1526284
>Implying that it magically turns into five times its weight in dynamite and detonates.

What's the GDP of Regulorm?

>> No.1526310

>>1526296
Not implying that at all. Try hitting something with gravel, then hitting it with the equivalent mass of something more dense, and you'll see what I mean. The more spread out the force, the less effective it would be against armor.

>> No.1526368

I don't foresee any vehicular space combat in the future.
Satellites might be used on ground targets, and spaceplanes might be used as dropships, but starwars stuff, no.

>> No.1526380

>>1526368
Not in the near future. As long as we only have one planet to worry about you are 100% correct. Which is cool, because that means we do not have long to wait for orbital strikes and SPESS MEHREENS!

>> No.1526573

>>1526380
Terrorists.

>> No.1526600

>>1526573
>Terrorists

HERETICS! Cleanse! Purge! Kill!

>> No.1526610

>>1526600
Just sayin', it's easier to drop rocks than to catch them. Terrorists!

>> No.1526677

>Warp drive.
>pop in one light hour away.
>observe.
>they wont see you till an hour later and by that time you will be out of there and coming closer quickly popping and out of warp.

Bitches don't know about my light speed delay

>> No.1527088

>>1526677
Subspace sensors, saw you on long range two light years away.

>> No.1527107
File: 971 KB, 1920x1080, Galactica.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1527107

captcha: drop avionics
lol