/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1527469]

Alrighty /sci/entists. Lets get a space combat thread going.

For many years we've seen the same Hollywood bullshit space combat. Laser beams not moving at the speed of light. Fucking projectile weapons. Ships a couple of hundred metres from each other.

The fight at the beginning of Star Wars: Episode 3 is a perfect example of this. I don't think I need to tell you all how unfeasible it is.

So, lets lay out some basic rules for realistic space combat, where it could go in the future, etc...

Personally, I think it's all going to be cloak and dagger stuff. Big focus on surprise attacks and stealth, the winner being the one that detected the other first. Electromagnetic weapons would make the most sense, though if you think about it you'd need to be relatively close (space-wise) to guarantee a hit.

Thoughts? Theories?

[Anonymous No.1527491]

If Star Wars were realistic, then ships would be shooting each other from millions of miles away. Small fighter craft would be limited to orbital missions and useless in deep space, there would be no ground armies because orbital bombardment renders a ground military useless, and most weapons would just be cannons that shoot things really really fast.

[Anonymous No.1527503]

My thoughts:
This is the fifth space combat thread I've seen today.

Persistant troll is persistant.

[Anonymous No.1527514]

>>1527491

a) Use the metric system like the rest of the world

b) They wouldn't be able to shoot each other from that far away. Think about how fast a combat ship would be going, and how manuevrable it would be. A space ship will not be in the same place for very long at all.

Ah, you say, but other ships will just lead the target!
True, but the same can be said for snipers. Snipers can take long shots when a target is moving predictably, but not when they're dancing around and dodging. A long range tactic would not work against a maneuvrable ship.

c) cannons? What future do projectile weapons have in warfare that is, as you say, fought over millions of kilometres? The only application would probably be orbital bombardment.

[Anonymous No.1527516]

Just read The Reality Dysfunction.

I think it wouldn't be cloak and dagger so much as a predictive nightmare. You would need to be in a certain place to receive messages at the speed of light from your allies to coordinate. At the same time you would probably be fighting with high energy masers for low wavelength range. You would not even know you are being shot at with masers or lasers until you're dead in most cases, your ship would need to be constantly jittering randomly.

I think there will be large command ships that stay back and send instructions to very tiny and extremely fast (100+g) probes armed for electronic warfare. The end of a battle will be because you were out-thought by your enemy's computer system in most cases.

[Anonymous No.1527524]

By the way, the reason I say it won't be cloak and dagger is because there is no stealth in space. Considering the amount of energy a spaceship will be giving off there is no way to hide it. You will be able to pick it up from many AU away. Of course, what you will be seeing is a delayed version of events so you won't be able to fight properly until you get much closer. And that's where the probes and trajectory prediction comes in.

[Anonymous No.1527526]

>>1527524

>> there is no stealth in space

The most used phrase on /sci/ to date.

[снайпер No.1527529]

>>1527491
Not millions of miles away, just thousands. Maybe hundreds of thousands for long range, planned engagements.

I've got some copy-pasta on ideas for a videogame using realistic spacecraft, and I'll post that in a second.

[Anonymous No.1527531]

space era wars will be won by spies, toe to toe skirmishes will be rare. we will never seen an open war against each other in space. with that out of the way. the only space combat that will be occurring would be against aliens.

[снайпер No.1527534]

>>1527529
RTT gameplay, combat is done on a WEGO system.
You control 1-5 ships, each of them frigate/cruiser sized. The biggest perhaps as large as a Nmitz carrier, with the smallest about the size of a Typhoon submarine.

Basic gameplay mechanics/axioms:
Nose has most armor and weapons [generally]
Sides and rear of spacecraft are vulnerable
Engines are weapons
Physical weapon damage based on newtonian physics, if you both accelerate into each other, your guns will hurt more
Penetration is modeled instead of hitpoints
Weapons are: Missiles [long range; Kinetic kill and nukes], Cannons [long range; gauss/railgun and conventional], and lasers [short range; ultraviolet wavelength].

A combat scenario takes place with consideration for the setting. Scenarios allow for various kinds of interception orbits which determines, partially, closing velocities in the game. Both players choose their initial closing velocities and trajectories before the game starts, using up fuel to change their initial closing velocities.

Full control is given to the pitch/roll/yaw of each spacecraft. UI design should focus on automating things like keeping a nose pointed at a designated enemy so the player doesn't have to do it manually. Different spacecraft designs will have different rotational and primary engine speeds. Mass is taken into consideration with the newtonian mechanics, a heavily armored, massive, spacecraft is much harder to maneuver than a less massive, lighter spacecraft. Mass changes during gameplay as parts are destroyed and fuel is used up. A heavily armored spacecraft could go into battle with a quarter tank of fuel, and come out with similar maneuverability as a result to a 'lighter' opponent. Fuel use becomes part of the tactics/strategy.

[снайпер No.1527535]

>>1527534
Subsystems within spacecraft can be damaged, penetrations that destroy battery or munition sections within the ship could cause internal explosions. A 'lucky bb' could destroy or disable an internal subsystem. To help differentiate design types, some ships put a focus on additional internal component armor, but as a trade-off have lower outer armor. Penetrations might occur more often, but internals aren't raped when the penetrations do happen.

General combat will consist of trying to present the most armor and guns to your enemy. Missiles and cannons can be fired into the maneuvering arc of the opponent, forcing him to turn his nose into the hits to blunt the damage and expose his side or rear to your lasers Or forcing him to change his direction of travel while keeping his nose pointed at you and hoping his point defense lasers can take care of any missiles that might re-maneuver to hit his side/rear armor. High speed closing velocities between two spacecraft can result in weapons that would normally be unable to penetrate instead cutting a hole straight through one side and out the other even through the thickest armor.

Heat and power management is also important. Firing weapons, especially lasers, may send your ship past its ability to manage the heat effectively, and firing all your energy intensive weapons, like railguns and lasers may drain your batteries and leave you unable to return fire or use laser point defense for several turns afterwards. [Better hope that alpha strike was worth it!] Going over heat capacity reduces the overall effectiveness of your ship.

Each ship/crew also has points it can issue for command and control, acting like reaction points.

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.1527541]

>>1527514
I don't think space ships are maneuverable in space.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1527543]

>>1527469
I like to picture in my head sometimes classic sci-fi redone as absolutely hard sci-fi. All the ship designs, technology, weapons, et cetera. Redo them to what would be needed for real physical specs. It's a glorious picture in my mind, quite glorious.

[Anonymous No.1527545]

I'm actually working on a relativistic space strategy game at the moment. I've been writing my own analytical solver based physics engine to handle the extreme cases that will be in the game (consider that at 1/1000th the speed of light, a starship would be travelling at 300km a second, meaning at 60fps it would be jumping forward by km each frame. This presents a considerable challenge for collision detection).

[снайпер No.1527547]

>>1527534
>>1527535
>>1527529
Now there are some basic design considerations.

You need armor, to protect yourself
You need weapons, to kill the other sob
You need radiators to dump waste heat
You need an engine so you can maneuver
You need a reactor so you can power your engines, weapons, life support and radiators
You need a crew to make high level diplomatic, tactical or strategic decisions and carry out rudimentary repairs
You need life support to keep your crew alive

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1527549]

>>1527541
Then you do not know shit about space ships.

[Anonymous No.1527553]

All this speculating is fun and stuff, but it doesn't change the fact that none of us will ever get to see it firsthand. Nor any human, probably. The majority of our species would rather die on our planet than expand into space, so the closets you'll get to space battles are orbital missile platforms that may or may not shoot at each other while bombarding the planet.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1527555]

>>1527547
Russian dude, I am the guy that will not shut up about profitable space travel and the million tons of platinum. I would like to work with you on this game.

[снайпер No.1527563]

>>1527555
Oh hell I'm not making it.

I just threw this stuff together from threads on /v/ of "what kind of game do you want to see someone make?"

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1527568]

>>1527563
Ah, ok. ::puts away his design notes for the space game:: sorry to trouble you.

[Anonymous No.1527569]

http://projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3w.html

This site has some pretty good info on space flight and space combat.

[Anonymous No.1527581]

>>1527524

Perhaps a focus on masking radiation? Ships that act as almost closed systems? Don't have exhaust, don't have hot engines, something like that.

[Anonymous No.1527595]

>>1527581

You could theoretically "stealth" one of the small probes I was talking about by simply shutting it down with a reactivation order and letting it cool or launching it with a railgun to begin with.

[Anonymous No.1527598]

>>1527581
How is something that doesn't create that much heat supposed to be a space ship? If it's going to move around with any purpose, it's going to generate energy. And if it creates energy, you're going to have to dump some of that energy into space before it builds up and cooks whatever is in the ship.

[снайпер No.1527618]

>>1527581
Not going to work.

What you need to do is refrigerate the hull of your spacecraft to 2-3k. This itself, will generate heat.

Then you've got to store the waste heat from your computers and life support, and whatever else, within the spacecraft.

It will not take very long for the inside of your spacecraft to become extremely hot.

You can use laser heatsinks to dump heat in a specific direction, but the amount of heat dumped is dependent on surface area and the degree of space you're willing to dump heat into. Needless to say, radiative heat transfer is already inefficient and you're making it even worse by limiting your waste heat into a very limited area.

Even so, all that is required is a network of satellites monitoring the solar system to detect you. Once you vent heat in the wrong direction, you're found and that's the end of that.

This still doesn't cover the issue with actually moving. If you want to move anywhere, you need big-ass engines. Most likely nuclear. And you don't fire up engines like that without everybody being able to see you.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1527619]

>>1527598
>>1527595

Combined, the only stealth you'd get is from cold objects indistinguishable from rocks. Unmanned weapon platforms that run cold, and do nothing, waiting for the chance to strike. Now, they will still be seen from WAY far away. "Sire, we got a 5 tonner on our approach vector. ETA 57 hours to closest approach. Closest approach approx, 4500 kilo-meters. Spectral reading shows carbon, iron, nickle, usual lode." Now, lets say the trick is not overused yet. They let that thing get too close before they notice it is a weapon platform. It can then go hot and do some serious damage. Or, we suppose the trick is common at their time period. Great, 50/50 chance it's a weapon pod or just a rock they tossed out to make us THINK it is a weapon pod so that we'd change course. Give me a full system sweep, how many rocks in our path of similar tonnage and composition... maybe we should just start blasting them all ASAP to be on the safe side.

Only stealth we got, proper application and it can really, really fuck with the head of the enemy.

[Anonymous No.1527650]

Another interesting idea for far future space combat is the use of magnetic fields to disperse incoming energy or deflect the trajectory of kinetic projectiles ever so slightly.

Imagine kinetic weapons that are spun up like a flywheel, storing enormous amounts of energy ready to be unleashed on impact.

Reflective solar/light sails with ablative surfaces.

Particle beams are actually not science fiction, they can really be produced and used.

Something often abused in science fiction that will never be used as a weapon is antimatter.

[Anonymous No.1527691]

>>1527650
Why not? If we find a cheap way to create it I see no reason not to use it in warfare...


For all the guys who think lasers are shortrange weapons... What makes you think that?
they're not dispersed in space, thus they can travel almost indefinitely without loosing intensity/power.
So they can also be used for stealth since by the time the enemy notices that you're there you're already hitting him with your laser.
On large distances (a few light seconds) he can just move around and will dodge... but it probably takes some time until a bigger ship is able to move fast enough to dodge like this.

[Anonymous No.1527693]

>>1527691
First question was directed at antimatter btw.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1527713]

>>1527691
First, there will never be a cheap way to make antimatter. That is just not how antimatter works. But if you need it and you got the budget, then you make. Antimatter is for specialized applications where the gain of using it outweighs the cost of making it.

Nobody is calling lasers short range. They are simply saying millions of miles is way too large a distance for normal combat. Heck, you even say the distance we are trying to tell you, large distance is light seconds away. Combat will not be at millions of km. The first million km is the max for what we define as combat, beyond that you're shooting someone to prevent combat.

[Anonymous No.1527741]

>>1527713
While antimatter might never be really cheap, blowing up a critical space station of the enemy forces might be worth using antimatter rockets.
A relatively cheap way would be harvesting it from solar flares if we figure out a way to do it.

I did combine my laser tactic with stealth, so long range is very much possible.
Let's say you power your spaceship off and drifts towards the solarsystem undetected, passes Pluto and you can already see the big space station orbiting earth because it has a massive heat signature, it's also just orbiting earth on a very predictable path. So you could just fire a laser from Pluto for about 5 hours without beeing detected, the laser would probably hit for an hour or so before the unmobile space station could move out of the way.
Counter tactic: Move a mirror in the way.

[снайпер No.1527764]

>>1527691
>For all the guys who think lasers are shortrange weapons... What makes you think that?

Think of it this way.

Cannons and missiles have the same range as the operational range of your spacecraft. If your spacecraft can reach it, so could your projectiles. All you need to do is thrust in that direction, and then fire. You could immediately turn around and those projectiles will continue on that course regardless. Missiles especially are good for this, because they can coast millions of miles before activating near the target and homing in on him.

Lasers on the other hand, are subject to the inverse square law. You cannot shoot someone a million miles away with a laser because the collimated light spreads out over distance. At long range, you may as well just be shining a flashlight on him.

[Anonymous No.1527774]

>>1527469
>Big focus on surprise attacks and stealth

Good luck hiding your thermal signature against the near absolute zero of space.

>>1527526

If people would stop bringing something so ridiculous up all of the time, it wouldn't be.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1527780]

>>1527741
If you need the antimatter to take out the stations, it is there. But in most cases you never need anti-matter for the destructive potential. Imagine this "You have been running fusion plants at full power for three years, you have made a miligram of antimatter. This is for massive relativistic cruiser to visit other solar systems, right?" "No, I was going to throw it at a space station." "...you spent enough power to create a fleet of nuclear armed warships... on a miligram of anti-matter for a one shot bomb on something as small as a space station."
Also. You had the rest of your post too. I don't normally save reaction images, can we get a "You went full retard" pic here?

The captcha for this post is "plan marooned". You said it, captcha.

[Anonymous No.1527796]

>>1527764
The inverse square law applies to light radiated in all directions, not to (perfect) lasers.
It will probably loose a negligible amount of power do to inperfections and dust particles.


>>1527774
Stealth would be possible if you drift along time.
Also if something like jumpdrives are possible you could jump to a location (lets say a light hour away), see where the opponent was an hour ago and shoot with lasers, he would just see you as the laser beam arives.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1527806]

>>1527796
You'll never get perfect lasers. As long as the laser has to be built out of matter, there is a maximum amount of focus you can acheive before it just cannot get any better. We are assuming close to maximum focus lasers in our estimates.

...and the rest of your post is just silly. Jump drives, man... that is a different topic entirely. It really, really needs it's own thread. I have been in such threads and lemme tell you, yeah, it needs it's own thread. Leave it out of this one for now.

[Anonymous No.1527814]

>>1527780
With the antimatter of solar flares it could possibly harvested in sufficient ammounts that there is an abundance. Or not, it's all just theory.
With a vast ammount of different ship drives and energy sources who even says that we have to rely on antimatter to power future space vessels?
There are theorys for ships powered by fucking artificial black holes. Figure out a way to harness vaccuum energy and you have infinite power. Cool something down so far that it goes below absolute zero and you theoretically get the Plank temperature (absolute hot) which might be harnessed for power.
No one is sure if it's possible or can be used in that way, but this whole discussion is well out of reach of current human technology anyway, so why not go a few thousand years further in technological developement and discuss stuff like this?

I'm not even disagreeing, I just want people to accept that the possibility to weaponize it remains.

[Anonymous No.1527818]

>>1527796
>gaussian beam divergence
>negligible

what the fuck am i reading

>Stealth would be possible if you drift along time.

No, it really wouldn't. You'd have to be at 3 Kelvin; just a little hotter than that and we'd be able to see you across the whole solar system. Your whole crew would be dead and most of your equipment destroyed. It also takes ages to settle at that temperature once heat generation stops.

Even then your dead and useless frozen starship would be still be detectable and easily identified because it's a hollow chunk of artificially formed metal.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1527832]

>>1527814

First off, there is no anti-matter from solar flares. Second, Star Trek does not use real physics you cut that out right now.

[Anonymous No.1527842]

>>1527806
It's not like jumpdrives are entirely impossible. Unlikely, yes, but impossible, not entirely.

What about the the alcubierre drive, ok it's not a Jumpdrive but a warpdrive... but the same "attack principle" applys as I mentioned before. Same with any other theoretical FTL technology.

It's true that I'm currently mostly talking about highly theoretical phyiscs which probably will never work, but they're not entirely fiction.

[Anonymous No.1527847]

>>1527842

Until we actually build one, yes it is fiction.

[Anonymous No.1527850]

lol, cruising for a few weeks to get to your target. Suddenly it changes locations unexpectly! Oh well better luck next time.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1527856]

>>1527842
No, you're talking Star Trek, not "theoretical physics".

Oh, and >>1527814
>I just want people to accept that the possibility to weaponize it(antimatter) remains.

We agree. But pick a better target than a measly station. Be a bit more detailed about how you're going to use the stuff.

[Anonymous No.1527869]

>>1527832
Solarflares:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0903rhessi.html
>The observation may upset theories about how the explosions, called solar flares, create and destroy antimatter.

Holy fuck and I thought I'm on a /sci/ence board.
Go fuck yourselfes with your fucking school knowledge. I bet you still think the solarsystem has 9 planets! GO READ UP ON RECENT PHYSICAL THEORYS AND ALL THAT BULLSHIT!


Real (theoretical) physics theory behind a Star Trek type drive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
Again not saying we will ever have drives like that, but I'm saying that we at least might.
A problem of that drive is that besides from the huge energy needed to power it, the created hawking radiation would vaporise anything.

[Anonymous No.1527870]

Anti-matter would be better used for orbital bombardment.

[Anonymous No.1527878]

>>1527869
>school knowledge
>THEORYS

You'd be more believable if you did not type like a child.

[Anonymous No.1527881]

>>1527847
Then you're probably in the wrong thread altogether.

[Anonymous No.1527888]

>>1527878
Sorry that I'm not a native english speaker, I will instantly kill myself now and hope to be reborn in America instead of the shitty country I live in right now.

[снайпер No.1527889]

>>1527842
>Same with any other theoretical FTL technology.

Not all.

The most interesting FTL is one that requires travel to be initiated at certain points within a solar system. So you can't just warp bombs into a planet.

[Anonymous No.1527897]

>>1527888

You're an American high school student, you lying cunt.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1527902]

>>1527469
You didn't read what you linked carefully. Gamma rays being emitted in an unexpected direction is all we know for sure happened in one, and only one, solar event. In the 7 years since then no solar event has had this problem and the regular cosmic model has held up. Seriously, it was one way out there idea and it has not held up, there is no anti-matter in our sun, and likely not in the others either.

As for the Alcubierre drive... there is not enough anti-matter in the universe to power it. And that is when you look beyond the more recently discovered problem, and keep in mind it;s the inventor of the thing finding everything wrong with it, that the engine would need to be OUTSIDE the bubble, never in it. So no warp ship, the engine has to stay put and travel normal speeds. With the force of a billion suns behind you the Alcubierre drive gets you nowhere.

[Anonymous No.1527911]

>>1527897
Nope, Austrian, 21. Starting university next year, altough I could/should have started about 2 years ago.
I come from a nation with such great people as Nicolas Tesla (altough his birthplace is no longer a part of Austria), Adolf Hilter and Josef Fritzl

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1527918]

>>1527911
Don't forget Arnold Schwarzenegger! But you probably have trouble spelling his name.

[Anonymous No.1527947]

>>1527902
I'm not saying the drive works, I'm just saying that there are theorIES and sereous scientists behind the stuff I talk.

As for the antimatter... as we can't distinguish it from normal mattersince it has the same propertIES except that it tends to annihilate when it comes in contact with normal matter, I would say that evidence of it's annihilation is enough in combination that in solarflares the same stuff happens as in particle accelerators which is the way we artificially produce antimatter.

And where the fuck did you read anything that they're not certain that antimatter is involved?
Besides, the way you say it sounds like you think that the sun stores and releases antimatter... No it's created in the flares.
Same with the gamma rays in unexpected directions... They were surprised that there were such high ammounts of gamma and x rays.

Do you have any reading comprehention or do you just pick up words from the article and invent your own stories to it?

[Anonymous No.1527951]

>>1527902
Oh btw, the one you're arguing with now (me) isn't OP.
You linked at the OP post when you were talking about the nasa article I posted

[Anonymous No.1527961]

Anyone who thinks that ground troops will be useless has forgotten a point made in Starship Troopers (or never read it). Politics.

[Anonymous No.1527999]

weapons platforms that don't give a fuck about armour, shields, or any of that shit

long range weaponry is king, the platform has to be big and stable enough to deliver the weapons at the target quickly enough, accurately enough, and at a long enough range to kill off the target before it kills the weapon's platform off

space combat'll be pretty fucking boring if/when it happens, as opposed to star wars, it'll be more like mars rover missions than anything else


a lot of sci fi that even tries to be remotely realistic (keyword remotely) give one good reason for the fact that they always have fucking pilots and shit doing reflex based combat

some sort of interference with targetting computers, and other stuff like that

that is all


basically the rule in space combat would be, kill your enemy before it gets a shot off, or fast enough where it can't guide weaponry at you in such a way as to pin you in so to speak "if you're launching small bb's from somethinbg like a rail gun or something, then you'd spread them out so almost no matter what, the other guy would be hit hopefully (depending on close you are)

or rockets, which could probably be hit by said bb style things

otherwise it's a shoot and hit before the other guy gets his weapons off, kind of game

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1528005]

>>1527999
Those have been the rules of warfare since dudes started hitting other dude's with sticks.

[Anonymous No.1528013]

And that's why I prefer the Warhammer 40k universe.

>captcha
>chorus Press

[Anonymous No.1528021]

>>1528005

actually no, shields and "blocks" in martial arts, and parrying, are all counter to this

arrows, and projectiles, follow this rule and philosophy of combat, however

snipers, artillery as well

and the point is, we see this philosophy becoming more and more powerful the more technology as a whole increases, I think that says a lot right there

[Anonymous No.1528032]

>>1527469

>basic rules for realistic space combat

Ships never get close enough to see each other. They're large enough to be able to produce their own guided warheads. It will be boring as fuck.

Also point of clarification: Blasters have never shot lasers. It's a gob of plasma.

[снайпер No.1528046]

>>1528032
It won't be boring.

I don't get this. If it's not some ADHD, michael bay fueled fantasy with explosions everywhere, then it must be boring?

Have people never heard of suspense or pacing? I don't need explosions shoved down my throat every 15 seconds to enjoy a book, movie, or game.

[Anonymous No.1528052]

>>1528021
well, there still is armor against todays weapons, a tank, a bunker, bullet proof west

[Anonymous No.1528062]

>>1528052

yea but we don't fall apart if we get slapped on the back, or have a baseball tossed at us lightly, or something...

you know what I mean, any sort of trash is deadly, in space to a craft

[Anonymous No.1528065]

>>1528046

I'm not that guy, but I certainly don't read books in which nothing happens, for pacing, or suspense

if I have to wait, I'll wait, but the urge to get going is because not knowing what will happen next is unpleasant

suspense lovers are partially masochists, chew on it

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1528079]

>>1528046
I agree with you, russian dude. Also, Space Combat will be more like a "video game", since everything will be done through computer control. You cannot see the enemy, so the enemy is on a display. You cannot directly operate the weapons, but you can control them. Et cetera, et cetera... pretty much, the combat will be fast paced and brutal, like combat has always been and always will be.

[снайпер No.1528142]

>>1528065
How many novels featuring realistic space combat have you read?

Here, have a short story.

http://www.mediafire.com/?myygyznynyt

[Anonymous No.1528160]

>>1528142
mmmm, remotely realistic, helfort's war I guess

I used to wonder why fucking ion and laser cannons haven't been used in satellites, and why this book from the 70's or 80's basically didn't come true

so I researched it, and that's what I came up with

helfort's war was similar enough to the answers to the problems of space combat that it reminded me of the research

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1528183]

>>1528142
It's a troll, ships powered by artificial suns fighting with beams of light, traveling at speeds of 400km/s and at distances of 100,000km averaging in engagement. Weapon contact means a section of ship disassociates on the atomic level, which translates to a good portion of the shell of diamond holding your entire world has just erupted into bright plasma. That's a good portion of everyone you work with gone. That's likely whatever is keeping you alive, gone. Maybe even the equipment that takes you home, gone. Thank god you're a gunner sitting in the armored sphere of control section in the middle of the ship, you're going to keep those lasers tracking on the enemy that just blasted away any chance you had... you will take the same chances away from him. The connection is made, a ribbon of fire now marks where his ship used to be. It cuts out, all energy beaming from it has ceased. Captain orders manuvering to end now... it's safe. It's over and maybe, just maybe we can call for rescue andBLAM!

...their cruiser took a gamble and cut all power as soon as they got hit... then had a sure fire shot to totally vaporize their target when it ceased maneuvers.

[Anonymous No.1529260]

>>1528183
I love the way you say it.
Personally I wouldn't stop to fire as long as there is still piece big enough to be a gun capable of damaging you.

Just in case the enemy ship was like several independent spaceship linked together, if you don't take out each one of them they can still destroy you.

[Anonymous No.1529270]

>stealth in space
For fuck's sake, when will this bullshit end?

[Anonymous No.1529281]

I don't know about you faggots but I'd take Hollywood style space combat over this boring shit anyday.

Besides, you're trying to come up with ideas on how space combat would work based on our own paltry technological basis of thought, I bet you theres races out there whove seen star wars and thought "we can do that" and then did

[Tribersman No.1529381]

>>1529281
I would love to see a science fiction story like that.

In our movie we want our actor to walk under gravity, but our space station is too far away from a planet.
Let's build a giant staging hangar whirling tied to a counterweight.

Basically, a civilization that invented funny looking magitech and is trying to make it Cool-looking fictional ship

"why are we burning behind us all that hydrogen an oxygen by the way ?"
"It's called a reaction drive, that was used before we invented the gravity-drive"
"You are sure it must be pointed behind us ? I though they were pointed forward"
"No, those are lightlamp, there were used before universal-law scanner were invented".

[Anonymous No.1529402]

>>1529281
>I don't know about you faggots but I'd take Hollywood style space combat over this boring shit anyday.
go back to bed, /v/

[Anonymous No.1529437]

OP, no one ever calls those slower-than-light weapons "lasers", so why would you think they are lasers, being slower than light? In Star Trek they're called "phasers", and in Star Wars they're called "blasters".

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1529479]

>>1527526
>The most used phrase on /sci/ to date.
At least it's true. Without breaking thermodynamics there is no practical stealth in space for interesting combat vehicles.

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1529490]

>>1527619
Good to see a tripfag who knows their stuff. With two manned craft facing off through launched stealth probes, this starts to resemble manned combat. Hide behind a large rock in an area and spread your probe network...and hope you don't have to dodge your mother ship, because you're screwed then.

[Anonymous No.1529494]

>>1527774
I don't know what kind of detector that you think is going to pick up a thermal signature of a space ship. Unless it's very, very close, it's going to be nearly impossible. When we sent a space ship to Jupiter, the only way we can pick up its signal at all is with a giant radio telescope, and that's with it using a parabolic dish to direct a transmission right at us. Space is vast. You can't pick up something as small as a space ship from far away, if it's not beaming a directed signal at you.

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1529501]

>>1527691
>they're not dispersed in space, thus they can travel almost indefinitely without loosing intensity/power.
Wrong. A laser will ALWAYS disperse. It's how optics work, and the only way to reduce that divergence is a larger primary lens.

[Anonymous No.1529512]

>>1529281

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1529513]

>>1527741
>Counter tactic: Move a mirror in the way.
You don't understand lasers. The best-reflecting surfaces we can make today are about 97% reflective. These are fragile, and any damage reduces their reflectance. So a reflective coating might buy (up to) seconds of time, but it will need to be replaced from micrometeorite action.

The time it buys depends on laser power and so on. A 100 MW laser will still heat its impact point with 3 MW, constantly increasing as it destroys the mirror shield.

[Anonymous No.1529516]

>>1529479
It's not true though. For example, the best stealth method might actually be quite similar to the age old terrestrial tactic -- attack with the sun at your back.

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1529522]

>>1527796
>The inverse square law applies to light radiated in all directions, not to (perfect) lasers.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_divergence
There is no such thing as a perfectly collimated laser whose diameter is constant. The impact circle of the laser will increase with distance, making it less and less dangerous.

[Anonymous No.1529529]

>>1529513
lasers use mirrors. If it's not going to overheat the laser's mirror, it won't overheat the defensive mirror. You can put as much transparent shielding material in front of your mirror as necessary to protect it.

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1529532]

>>>1527796
>if something like jumpdrives are possible
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about reality.
>Stealth would be possible if you drift along time.
Nope. Keeping a crew of 6 alive requires that you disperse 15 KW of power. If you can even shut down your reactor, how long will it take you to spin it up? Is that worth the trouble?

How much heat do your computer systems make? And how much power is it taking to keep your hull at 3 Kelvin? This is unmanageable for long drifts. And all those maneuvers you did to make your "long drift" path aren't hard to see.

[Anonymous No.1529547]

>>1529501
Right, which is why projectile weapons might be more advantageous over very long distances. The vacuum of space pretty much eliminates an distance limitations to projectile weapons, so it becomes a question of how accurately you can aim them. Modern weapons tend more and more to adjust their trajectory en route, so maybe that would be the direction weapons would take.

[Anonymous No.1529571]

>>1527549
It's true. On ground or in an atmosphere you can make a 90 degree turn virtually zero energy expenditure. In space you need twice the energy expenditure you used to get moving in the first place to make a 90 degree turn -- unless you're slingshotting around a planet.

[Anonymous No.1529575]

ARCHIVE THIS!

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1529608]

>>1529494
>Space is vast. You can't pick up something as small as a space ship from far away, if it's not beaming a directed signal at you.
I've got a camera that takes pictures that are 3906x2602 pixels. Let's say that I set it up to only see infrared light. Now it will only see stars and other hot things. Assuming that I'm looking for a spaceship of given size, I know exactly how long it'll take me to sweep the sky - I need that ship to be a pixel or larger, unless I use some interesting computing to read sub-pixel streaks.

Example: I'm searching for a 10-meter ship somewhere in a ten-degree cone, and I suspect that it is within 100,000 km. Geometrically speaking, the ship would take up tan-1(10/100000000) = 1.0 × 10-6 arc degrees. This means that I'd have to take

This 10-degree arc is 31,560,861,789 cubic kilometers of space. Naturally it would take other information to know which 10-degree cone to search! A cold search takes a lot longer...

With today's camera technology, this would take an exhaustive (approximately) 100000 exposures. Such a sweep would take around an hour with one such camera. Now let's suppose that we use the technology they'd have then, with multiple sensors cooperating. You get a high-resolution arc of sky, with a ship-size object unable to hide between pixels. If they know your exact capture pattern and momentary position it's possible they could plan weeks ahead and be drifting JUST RIGHT, but that's unlikely to happen by chance, and it'd be avoided by multiple sweeps.

Subtract stars from it, assuming they look right. If a star looks suspiciously cold, it's a ship. Now subtract proper-looking stars and planets. What's left? These are things worth investigating.

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1529620]

>>1529516
>attack with the sun at your back.
And yet you assume only one defender. Why?
>>1529529
>You can put as much transparent shielding material in front of your mirror as necessary to protect it.
There is no such thing as 'transparent.' If the shielding material is 1% opaque then it will get 1% of the energy and heat up. Mission accomplished! Heat delivered to target. But you've made a silly assumption.
>If it's not going to overheat the laser's mirror, it won't overheat the defensive mirror.
1) That a practical defensive mirror is identical to a practical laser mirror. One of these is hand-sized and worth the trouble of actively cooling it, the other is not.
2) That lasers are not used in arrays. If we (for some reason) assume that bulk mirror material and optical mirrors have the same optical characteristics and the same thermal protection, then I would use more lasers. And you can't practically aim lasers back without an awful lot of equipment. Your "defensive screen" is quickly becoming much of your ship's weight.

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1529649]

>>1529571
>In space you need twice the energy expenditure you used to get moving in the first place to make a 90 degree turn
Let me explain space dodging. Let's suppose that at this MOMENT you know my ships' exact position and velocity relative to yours. Suppose further that you fire a single shot that will intersect my path and destroy me. The question now is, how far can I dodge? I agree completely that a spaceship cannot wheel around on a dime. But they wouldn't have to. A ship can maneuver up to its acceleration in any direction at any time, unless it takes an unusually long time to turn the engines to face.

Suppose your weapons take 5 seconds to hit after you launch them, and I have a combat acceleration of 10 m/s^2. How large an area must you hit? In 5 seconds, I can move up to 417m. We have to start looking at ship size, but to guarantee a hit you must saturate a 417m circle with fire. Here we are ignoring my dodges towards and away from you because they don't matter for dumb munitions.

With guided munitions things get more interesting. What can I do to outmaneuver a missile with twice my delvavee? Next post.

[Anonymous No.1529762]

I apologize for nuking a thread.

[Anonymous No.1529843]

These threads are all the same: people export trends in modern air combat (missiles, one hit kills, victory going to whoever fires the first shot, etc) to space and assume those trends will hold true in the new setting.

History would like a few words with you about that line of reasoning... Remember in WWI, when generals decided to counter machine gun emplacements with infantry charges because that was how they always fought wars in the past? Didn't go so well, did it? Remember when France built the Maginot Line to defend against Germany, because trench warfare had become expected, and the Germans just drove around it and conquered France in a matter of days?

I would be quite amused to test your unarmored ships armed with guided munitions and relativistic bb-guns operating at extreme ranges against a ship with a few thousand tons of explosive-reactive armor on every surface, redundant subsystems, and independently pressurized compartments, with a few high-caliber guns closing to a few hundred kilometers.

[Anonymous No.1529875]

it would look a lot like this picture

but I have one question

what would be the common range of such engagements ?

some say light seconds away, others claim most weapons would be most effective under a light second, sci-fi gets it wrong in every movie/novel

and how effective lasers, rail guns, gauss guns, missiles, nukes and particle weapons would be in space ranges

I know for nukes you don't have to score a hit to make it effective a detonation of a warhead of reasonable yield from at least 2 Km from a spacecraft would be more than enough to score a kill

[Anonymous No.1529903]

>>1529875

ops, forgot pic

FUCK YOU CAPTCHA

[Anonymous No.1529961]

Search your feelings, /sci/, you know it to be true.

[Anonymous No.1529967]

There's no stealth in space, but there sure as fuck is electronic warfare. You can't detect shit if your scanners are offline.

Not to mention stealth is unnecessary when you're good at hiding.

There will probably be lots of terrorist attacks, fake convoys and friendly ships approaching stations, then opening fire or detonating inside.

Planetary assault would probably involve berserker ships - ships you KNOW are coming and will fend off anything you throw at them until they reach their goal. Probably even just slam themselves into the planet. The counter to this would probably be just trying to knock them off target rather than destroy them.

-turning enemy ships around from impact force would probably be the goal of most battles.

Ground battles will still exist because it'll be relatively easier to fill the planet with undercover troops and just take control of the planet government and military, as opposed to trying to bore down to underground bunkers from outer space without glassing the planet.


Long range battles would be pointless. There's no reason to fight in the middle of space. You'd be attacked near some structure or celestial body. Some ships hiding on an asteroid you're mining or something.

Missiles would be used because you could just keep accelerating them and do damage just by the speed of impact.

Boarding will probably be used for larger ships (more like hijacking from what they thought was a safe ship).

[Anonymous No.1530010]

My money is on very small craft, using a suite of missiles, small laser weaponry and most importantly: Totally robotic.

[Anonymous No.1530047]

Battles are going to be EXTREMELY decisive.

People aren't going to be scanning the space around their planet at all times. America couldn't even detect airplanes flying into their buildings, but it was on high alert after. It'd be the same in space. You'd only get once chance to catch people unaware, so the attacker is going to be CERTAIN that they can win.

They'll either have infiltrated and have you under control or in chaos before the attack even arrives, or failing that, they'll make sure to bring enough dudes and guns that you won't possibly win no matter how long you prepare.

[Anonymous No.1530066]

Fuck that george lucas bullshit

BSG FTMFW

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1530157]

>>1529843
independently pressurized compartments, with a few high-caliber guns closing to a few hundred kilometers.
Do you know how little time you'll spend at that range? If you're closing from hundreds of thousands of kilometers to "a few hundred kilometers" without magical engines and within a survivable amount of time, you'd be within that range for a few tenths of a second.

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1530171]

>>1529875
>at least 2 Km from a spacecraft would be more than enough to score a kill
Naw bro. Not only is 2 km in space is tiny, but a ship built to survive space would not be particularly effective unless your nukes were specially-built for huge gamma yield. At 2 km the yield is spread among 16,746,666.7 square meters. So if you're aiming at a ship presenting a cross section of 10x10 meters, it only gets 5.97133757 × 10-6 of the radiation.

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1530178]

>>1529967
>There's no stealth in space, but there sure as fuck is electronic warfare. You can't detect shit if your scanners are offline.
First, 'scanners' are active sensors. They are the opposite of stealth. There are ways to disable passive sensors, but they usually require knowing exactly where to aim a disabling pinpoint burst of power, and giving up your present position. That is, you can't disable a stealthy foe without knowing where he is, AND giving up your location. If disabling passive sensors becomes common, ships will stock extras and share information as best they can.

>Probably even just slam themselves into the planet.
What is this I don't even. That'd jellify the crew.

>-turning enemy ships around from impact force would probably be the goal of most battles.
That would be overkill, destroying the ship a hundred times over.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1530184]

>>1529843
Those mistakes you mentioned were laughed at even before they were made. ESPECIALLY the maginot line. To quote just about every american general just after France started building it, "The world is moving away from permanent fortification, and the French go and build the biggest one in history."

Putting that aside, your idea would work ok. But keep in mind that combat is very lossy, any kind of combat. Not everyone is extrapolating trends in air warfare here.

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1530186]

>>1530047
>People aren't going to be scanning the space around their planet at all times.
Why not? You do things based on what it costs to do them or not to do them. This is retarded. "Nobody looks behind them on the streets at night so muggers always succeed."
>or failing that, they'll make sure to bring enough dudes and guns that you won't possibly win
What the fuck? "They'll win by having more guys than you could possibly ever have?" Justify this. Why would the attacker magically always have more power?
>Least Rowlings
So true, even she wrote fights better

[Anonymous No.1530191]

>>1530171
>At 2 km the yield is spread among 16,746,666.7 square meters
>4 pi r^2
>whatthefuckamireading.jpg

[Anonymous No.1530196]

>>1530191
>Or even (4 pi r^3)/3
>whatthefuckamireading.jpg

[Anonymous No.1530200]

>>1529875

lasers are fucking useless past a light second, even at one light second they would take massive amounts of power to do anything.

even an ideally focused laser (least possible spread allowed by physics) becomes well over a kilometer in diameter at one light second distance. so it takes retarded amounts of power to laser zap stuff from a distance.

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1530211]

>>1530191
Good to see someone else paying attention. But you agree, nonetheless, that a simple nuke is ineffective in space; in fact any weapon with spherical output that doesn't self-terminate at very close range is a waste of power.

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1530219]

>>1529843
>missiles, one hit kills, victory going to whoever fires the first shot,
Those characteristics come from these facts:
Weapons outmaneuver craft
One hit can heavily damage or disable the craft
Weapons are useful at long range (Because they self-guide with some accuracy and outmaneuver)
Craft can try to decoy weapons.

If those aren't true, neither is the conclusion (Submarine/missile warfare).

[Anonymous No.1530226]

>>1527516

HOLY SHIT dude. I just looked at the wiki of that story and then your post. Thats fucking awesome.

[Anonymous No.1530235]

I think fly-bys will be the way to go. Why accelerate your craft, decelerate, fire, reaccelerate when you can do it in one go (and possibly even aim for where you are going next)?
The best way to use this relative speed would be projectile weapons of course. Or if you can do a very close fly-by, lasers could work too (damage their hull => instant death of many), although relative speed wouldn't work then ;)

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1530236]

>>1530178
I think he favors unmanned craft, so slamming stuff into other stuff is a viable strategy. That or he'll use space vikings and klingon cosplayers as his crews.

[Anonymous No.1530251]

>>1530178
>What is this I don't even. That'd jellify the crew.

Who says it's manned? It could just be an automated defended giant self-propelled asteroid.

>>1530186

>Why not? You do things based on what it costs to do them or not to do them. This is retarded. "Nobody looks behind them on the streets at night so muggers always succeed."

Because humans. If they aren't expecting an attack, they aren't going to be paying attention to readouts or whatever the system gives them. Not to mention most ships picked up would probably be incoming friendlies. If the attack is sudden, the station is not necessarily going to consider it a threat until it presents itself as one. If humans weren't stupid (once again, it'll take a human to do something about a report given from the system, unless you have some automation firing at everything that approaches the planet) very few people would be mugged.


It sounds dumb, but it's most likely what will happen.

>What the fuck? "They'll win by having more guys than you could possibly ever have?" Justify this. Why would the attacker magically always have more power?

BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T ATTACK AT ALL IF THEY KNOW THEY ARE JUST GOING TO LOSE.

They're only going to get once chance to catch people before they go to full military alert, so if they don't win that time, they probably aren't going to win later once the planet can prepare ahead of time and actually IS paying attention to their skies instead of derping around the control stations. If they did lose that chance or no one derped at all, then why would they send, KNOWING that they will be expected and the opponent ready to fight, anything LESS than an insurmountable force?

If you're the weaker, then you aren't going to attack in any direct way. Better start practicing terrorism.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1530253]

>>1530235
Wooh, bomber fleet! KKV strike multiple worlds while passing through a system.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1530268]

>>1530251
IT's nice to see someone employing my two favorite strategies for taking over a planet, but you're presenting it wrong and going about it wrong. First, there is never a gaurantee you're bringing more guys. You have to specifically mean "I certainly have more guys now". There is never "the enemy always uses overwhelming force", perfect, then how much does he have on his planetary defense budget, I'mma counter bomb.

Second, assume 100% sky monitor 24/7. They'll see you as you are entering the solar system and have weeks to months to prepare. In fact, they have weeks to months to see you coming.

Then you mention, in a very incoherent way, false flag operations. You seem to not be clear yourself on whether that counts as a failure of sensors or a good trick. Like it or not, the 9/11 attacks were "seen" the entire way, right up to the second crash. They were monitored the whole time. And after the second one hit it became clear what they were. But nobody fell asleep at the radar stations, it was just a good surprise attack using infiltrators. You are stating a good idea entirely the wrong way.

[Anonymous No.1530272]

ITT: ppl who don't comprehend physics

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1530274]

>>1530272
That is redundant. This is the /sci/ence board of 4chan. In This BOARD: People who do not understand physics.

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1530293]

>>1530251
>Who says it's manned? It could just be an automated defended giant self-propelled asteroid.
That makes sense. Expensive missile though... I agree with the rest of your post.
>>1530253
That seems wasteful of life in general.

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1530295]

>>1530274
>In This BOARD: People who do not understand physics.
I try to get 'em right. Even if I do it can lead to wrong conclusions. Like, I don't know much about getting past sensors, only what the sensors could in theory detect. That's meaningless data if an attack isn't recognizable.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1530300]

>>1530293
Nah, it's a great idea. The entire mission done at near peak delta-V, only spending more propellant for course corrections. As you pass by each target location to release the KKVs, you lose mass and the situation for your manuvering becomes better. Your KKVs have all of your vessels speed plus what they add to it as they set course for the target you are passing by. A proper KKV is tough to take down, since in some cases destroying it only lessens the damage as you've merely spread out the force, not stopped it as the spread of debris makes impact.

So, max delta-V run through a system, fighting everything trying to intercept you, dropping off weapons on every planet and keeping yourself out of planet defense ranges. It's gonna be fun on a bun. WHO IS WITH ME!?

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1530304]

>>1530295
I'mma just sayin', this is a board for geeking out, it's still mostly kids here. The real minds have real science boards to go to when they get sick of the stealth in space arguments. This board is nowhere near advanced enough to handle a planetary engineering conversation to create variations on Rocheworld. This board as a whole still has trouble with Newtonian physics.

[Anonymous No.1530372]

If missiles are one of the only viable means of attack, couldn't the defenders just use lasers to destroy the missiles when they get close enough?

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1530387]

>>1530304
The price I pay for being an avid reader and dilettante engineer...

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1530391]

>>1530372
>just use lasers to destroy the missiles
Probably not. The missiles are going very fast, and there are probably quite a few of them. Lasers don't work well for destroying things quickly.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1530394]

>>1530391
Considering the missile distance and speed, you can still take out a few.

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1530417]

>>1530394
You may even be able to start blinding them at significant range, if someone is just taking potshots at you. But with the way lasers divierge, unless you have tricky optics that focus...what's the word

Narrowest point of the beam is past the aperture, so it narrows some before divergence dominates...Wicked Lasers has one that does this

then you would be very range-limited. At such range, gravel shot wouldn't be much help either :(

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1530436]

>>1530417
Yeah, you can give the laser a couple light seconds range, which the missiles will take time to cross. The missiles will reduce time they are being laced with sidelong maneuvers, but this only reduces damage, not completely eliminates it.

But yeah, using a mirror and lens system, you can turn that divergence into a convergence and increase laser range. So you beat a laser defense with maneuvering and more missiles. And KKVs.

[Anonymous No.1530915]

>>1530211
Lol yeah. I was actually trying to point out that you don't get 16 million m^2 with either of those formulae which one would use in 3 dimensions. But you also don't get that number with pi r^2 either.
But yes, the inverse square law renders nukes useless unless they are either 1) direct hits, 2) they are all tsar bomba yields, which of course is possible if you're doing orbital bombardments in a vessel large enough.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1530924]

>>1530915
100megaton shaped charge x-ray nukes are not out of the question with sufficient fusion power to produce them.

[Anonymous No.1530993]

>>1530924
I suppose you're right about that, hypothetically. I mean we're still talking about ships we can envision, constructed on solid science and engineering principles we know today right?


Damn it no one liked my BSG gif :(

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1531124]

>>1530993

Oh, we can make bomb-powered x-ray lasers. I can't remember the efficiencies I've seen claimed, but they're shit-tons of power.

[Tribersman No.1532976]

HERE IS WHY THERE IS NO STEALTH IN SPACE :
>>1529490
Unmanned Probes unpowered : don't work
why ? Because even supposing nobody saw you launching the drones, the very light coming from the sun is going to bounce of it an reveal it's position.

>>1529516
Sun in the back / radiating in a direction where there is nobody : Doesn't work
Why ? Because there will be more than one radar in one direction.
Unless by some astronomical miracle planet or rock STAY CONSTANTLY between you and every sensor in the system you are screwed.

You may have a few light-hour until the information is convoyed but this isn't much on a trip that will take month.

THE ONLY THING THAT CAN WORK FOR "STEALTH"
Hide your spaceship completely unpowered in a cargo bay that is said to transport false element THAT MUST HAVE THE SAME WEIGHT THAN THE SHIP or else you gonna have discussion like "Why did our sensor picked up that your ship is 10% heavier than what it should be with said ?"
Or "Isn't that strange that assembled all those elements could form a warship ?"

>>1529575
No... there is too many moron, if nobody here was still claiming stealth method we already disproved I would have agreed but no.

>>1529967
Informatic warface :
The time you get there you'll have to get every sensor of for so long that it would like you already control the planet.
At the very last you can disrupt them at the last moment during the battle but they'll probably have prepared MANY redundant system when they saw your fleet coming.

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1533800]

>>1532976
>The time you get there you'll have to get every sensor of for so long that it would like you already control the planet.
Once you've presumed that any attacker outpowers any allies that can possibly come to your aid by default, then it's not hard to assume that somehow they'd tow along a broadband jammer capable of drowning out a planet. Not that that'd attract attention, mind you.

[Lone Wanderer !K.aeLxKxZI No.1533833]

I really like how space combat was characterized in BSG.

Gauss cannons, flak, missles, nukes nukes nukes.

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1533895]

>>1533833
> I really like how space combat was characterized in BSG. Gauss cannons, flak, missles, nukes nukes nukes.
Unguided projectiles are ineffective. Nukes are ineffective in spherical yield. Flak only works if disabling a missile's guidance makes it harmless; anything close enough to hit flak is likely to hit you.

[Anonymous No.1533901]

>>1532976
So you're assuming some kind of radar network that covers the solar system. Okay, fine, there's no stealth in a solar system blanketed by radar stations. Other than that, there is stealth in space.

Keep in mind that radar is useless over a certain range. A small ship is just too small for it to get a detectable reflection beyond a certain distance, and we obviously have the technology to be very stealthy against radar.

Stealth against heat detectors should be even easier. The signal is just ridiculously tiny from great distance.

[Anonymous No.1533906]

BIG FUCKING MAGNET CANNONS.

[Anonymous No.1533914]

starship cpomletely rand by magnets!!!!

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1533918]

>>1533901
I covered this here. With my fucking pocket camera I can patrol a hemisphere of Earth approaches. See here:
>>1529608
Also, we've already discussed that a ship doing anything interesting is very easy to spot. It's not a 'tiny signal' to run your gigawatt reactor system to charge weapons, and it's certainly not stealthy to do any useful maneuvering. If you commit to a single free fall, you still have to run your life support cooling, which must have a radiator temperature of at least 273K. To some extent you can emit this to only one side, but narrowing your heat emanations further is of limited use and really shitty efficiency. Assuming you know where every damn listening station is, it could help a bit. But the thermal requirements of a 6-man crew are at minimum 15 kW of heat rejection.

Before you say OMG ROBOTS, consider how long it takes to cool a sizeable probe to space temperatures.

[Anonymous No.1533922]

To the whole no stealth in space debate. What if I had an unmanned battle probe (since, lets face it, small combat ships aren't gonna be manned). Then fire the engines till its at a certain speed heading right for your base. Then shut off everything, engines, and let it fly towards you at that speed. If its a shape that isn't radar detectable it'll be pretty hard to detect before its near enough to reactivate then it's too late. Or maybe the same technique with a long range missile type weapon

[Anonymous No.1533927]

magnets, I heard something about magnets

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1533940]

>>1533922
Every second you have it burning engines it is visible at Pluto ranges. And when it cuts off its engines and goes to sleep, it's hot. That means it's glowing, just not in light your eyes can see. Glowing objects aren't stealthy, but it'll slowly cool off. The engine plume tells position, speed, engine type, approximate power, and acceleration. From that and spectral analysis it's easy to find its weight. Now we know it's coming, where it started, and where it's aiming. Any significant changes in its path will require using those engines again.

Radar stealth relies on reflecting radar radiation away from the source. That makes it harder to find something, but then we already know pretty much where it is. Now, if you manage to do its engine work without being detected, or by dropping them from a legitimate-looking flight, then you're onto something. Dropping them from a mothership by catapult lets them start cold. It'd be a huge expense, and probably work.

[Anonymous No.1533962]

>>1533940
>>1533940
Facinating thread though, I like thinking about things like this.

For example, on Star Trek, why do they never say stuff like

>Captain, enemy ship approaching, 2000km from... above

[Anonymous No.1533983]

>>1527911
>Austrian
>I come from a nation with such great people as Nicolas Tesla
good work.
i raged extremely hard. and i'm not even serbian.

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1533987]

>>1533962
>For example, on Star Trek, why do they never say stuff like
TV viewers are simple people. A 3-d battlefield at extreme range is beyond what they can imagine. So directors make close-range ship-broadside exchanges at worst (Star wars fleet actions), and F-22 dogfights at best (BSG sometimes). Once, Star Trek had Spock accuse a foe of "Two-dimensional thinking," and they made a big production about approaching from above. That's it, though. You have to look -everywhere- in space.

[Anonymous No.1533998]

>>1533940
>implying you could see the heat plume of a rocket at pluto distance

[Anonymous No.1533999]

There's like a hundred posts in this thread, and I have to be the first to mention that soundwaves don't work in space? Every depiction of interplanetary war, would have to be completely silent. You wouldn't be able to hear explosions.

[Anonymous No.1534003]

infrared stealth could work, but only when viewed from one direction.

attach a foil in front of the ship, refrigerate it to 3K, and dump the heat behind.

[Anonymous No.1534005]

>>1534003

>> Implying heat won't diffract

[Anonymous No.1534012]

>>1527547
>>1533999
>You need a crew
no you don't.
if you're advanced enough to build space combat ships, AI required to automate them would be a walk in the park.

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1534059]

>>1533998
>implying you could see the heat plume of a rocket at pluto distance
You don't know the rockets we'd have then, do you. It's sunstuff shooting out in one direction. Considering the telescopes we have these days, yes. It would be visible.
>>1533999
>You wouldn't be able to hear explosions.
Implying that command deck wouldn't be interested in how close explosions are getting.
Speakers: boom Boom BOOM
Captain: They're shooting closer!

>>1534003
And this is useful for penetrating a system, how?
>>1534012
>AI required to automate them would be a walk in the park.
Implying that AI must be possible just because one has better computers

[Anonymous No.1534071]

>>1533918
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your camera explanation. If a ship at 100,000 km takes up 1e-6 degrees of arc, then your pocket camera that has a zoom lens to cover only 10 degrees, still needs along ONE dimension a resolution of 10,000,000 pixels just for the ship to occupy one full pixel!

But aside from a ridiculous CCD, that will take a ridiculously huge lens. You can't get arbitrarily large resolution out of any lens -- you need huge lenses to resolve high resolution.

lens resolution is sin(T) = 1.22 L/D

where T is the angular resolution, L is the wavelength of light, and D is the lens aperture. IR light is around 100 um. Pluto distance is around 6 billion km. sin(T) of a 10-meter space ship at Pluto that is about 10 meter/6 billion km = 1.7e-12.

Solving for required lens size, D,

D = 1.22 * 100 um/1.7e-12
D = 72,000 km

The lens required to resolve a 10-meter object at pluto would be 5 times larger than the earth.

There is stealth in space.

[Anonymous No.1534079]

>>1533999
An explosion involves the release of gas at extreme high speeds in every direction. When the gas hits your hull, you'll hear it.

[Anonymous No.1534080]

>>1534079
LOL I CAN HEAR NITROGEN EVERYWHERE.

IF U CAN HEAR GASES THEN HOW COME U CANT HEAR THE AIR LAUGHING AT YOU HUH

[Anonymous No.1534086]

>>1534059
The AI does not need to be true AI you numpty. We already have automated UAVs flying around murdering people at random.

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1534087]

>>1534071
>still needs along ONE dimension a resolution of 10,000,000 pixels just for the ship to occupy one full pixel!
The ship needn't occupy one full pixel, especially if it's boosting. Mostly it'd just be wasteful to have a camera system capable of that! I specifically mentioned that it would be a process involving many pictures. Think of it as a huge panorama.

The Hubble Space Telescope is very far along this curve, with its ridiculous ability to resolve objects. It's got far more power than needed, but given the cost of military sensor packages it wouldn't be hard to get enough performance out of this system. It's a passive scanner that takes a few minutes to scan an area, but it's sensitive to infrared. You can wait for data, considering how long it will take realistic ships to cross that distance sneakily.

This will not defend against devious use of KKVs, but at least you can't fire them from behind the sun.

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1534090]

>>1534086
>We already have automated UAVs flying around murdering people at random.
Accomplishing what? If you're going to shovel money into a robot you'll want it reliable, which limits what it'll do.

[Anonymous No.1534103]

>>1527529
How does your game deal with relativity of simultaneity?

[Anonymous No.1534107]

>>1534059
>And this is useful for penetrating a system, how?
it's better than nothing. you are undetected until you get inside the sensor network. by that time you can already have a significant delta-v
>Implying that AI must be possible just because one has better computers
why do you think there won't be any advancements in theory of AI?

[Anonymous No.1534108]

>>1534080
A high explosive is at least 2km/s. When the shockwave hits your hull, you'll hear it. Unlike in an atmosphere, an explosive shockwave doesn't slow down in space, because it's just the high speed gas moving unencumbered through a vacuum.

[Anonymous No.1534111]

>>1534090
I should think an attack craft would have the capability communicate remotely with its "home". Orders can be issued or cancelled, the craft could be controlled remotely etc. A small vessel is unlikely to venture far enough away from its "home" due to time and fuel constraints to be a problem.

[Anonymous No.1534135]

>>1534087
Hubble's angular resolution is 0.05 arcsecond. So the furthest away the Hubble could resolve a 10-meter spaceship to a pixel is

10m/tan(0.05 arcsecond) = 41,000 kilometers.

That's 1/10 the distance to the moon! This is why the hubble can't detect the lunar landers and other vehicles left behind on the moon.

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1534138]

>>1534107
>it's better than nothing. you are undetected until you get inside the sensor network. by that time you can already have a significant delta-v
Quite right - I should have clarified "Useful for entering undetected." But this does let you get close. I'm not sure how you'd keep your initial engine plume from giving away your position. You can't come from behind the sun at much velocity in a reasonable time-frame. Do you trust your robots?
>>1534111
>Orders can be issued or cancelled,
Broadcasting defeats stealth, although you could probably have carefully aimed directional antennas, there would be leakage past each receiver at range.
>A small vessel is unlikely to venture far enough away from its "home" due to time and fuel constraints to be a problem.
It might be worth it to build one-way missions. Even a catapult-launched attack craft needs a lot of deltavee to return. A self-launching one needs even more extra.

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1534151]

>>1534135
Well shit, I learned stuff today. Back to the drawing board for that idea... I can at least be comforted that a sub-pixel craft might emit enough light to be visible while it's running its engines.

>Hubble's angular resolution is 0.05 arcsecond. So the furthest away the Hubble could resolve a 10-meter spaceship to a pixel is
TIL: Angular resolution is handy.

[Anonymous No.1534160]

>>1527469
>I think it's all going to be cloak and dagger stuff
Interstellar voyages the way you see them in movies and such: Not feasible. Not gonna happen.
Interstellar battles: Mutually assured destruction for all involved: Not feasible. Not gonna happen.

You should just relax, It's like bitching about unicorn pegasi battles not being realistic.

[Anonymous No.1534169]

>>1534138
Oh I just walked into this thread and I had no idea we were talking about stealthy probes. In that case radio silence would probably be a given so the AI would have to be as autonomous as possible.

I fail to see what a small probe is able to achieve stealthily in space anyway. In order to return any information it has to reveal its presence by firing engines or transmitting EM radiation.

[Anonymous No.1534174]

>>1534160
Nuclear warfare: Mutually assured destruction for all involved: Not feasible. Not gonna happen.

[Anonymous No.1534177]

>>1534151
>>1534169

Doesn't even have to be running its engines if you have an IR camera. Just the heat needed for computer and mechanical systems to remain operational would be sufficient. Shit doesn't work at 3 Kelvin.

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1534181]

>>1534169
>Oh I just walked into this thread and I had no idea we were talking about stealthy probes. In that case radio silence would probably be a given so the AI would have to be as autonomous as possible.
It can send directionally away from snoopers, until it gets so close that it's likely to be surrounded. Sending to it would have to be disguised as legitimate traffic somehow.
>I fail to see what a small probe is able to achieve stealthily in space anyway. In order to return any information it has to reveal its presence by firing engines or transmitting EM radiation.
You could plan long watch orbits that send it in and out. And as long as it isn't surrounded it could send directionally. But
>>1534135
brings up a good point. Even passive sensors would have trouble identifying where ships are to see if it can send in the clear.
>>1534160
Engineers, nerds, and physicists deserve to be entertained.

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1534191]

>>1534177
No, IR is just light, and you have to be able to resolve it. Your IR emissions have to make a notable difference to a whole pixel - not that a pixel has to be the size of your craft, but it can't be too much bigger or it'll average out to noise levels.

An important note is how damn long it'd take a probe to reach interstellar temperature to remain stealthy on close approach.

[Anonymous No.1534199]

>>1534111
>fuel constraints
don't forget that cruising in space doesn't take any fuel.
you can use a space tug to accelerate ship, and than let it fly against target. onboard fuel will be used only for maneuvering.

[Anonymous No.1534201]

>>1534071

telescope arrays?

[Anonymous No.1534224]

>>1534191

We don't let probes reach background temp. Every one of them includes heating in its energy budget because being cooled to a few Kelvin will destroy all the equipment on board. They shine like light bulbs in IR.

[Anonymous No.1534248]

No mention of Babylon 5 yet, /sci/?

I'm fucking disappoint

[Anonymous No.1534249]

>>1534201
In theory perhaps. But I doubt the practicality of patrolling the whole solar system using immense telescope arrays.

What I would do is put a sentry probe in orbit around every planet, so as to detect any ship that gets close enough to use one of the planets as a gravitational brake or slingshot.

[Anonymous No.1534250]

>>1534224
you could temporarily store the heat extracted from outer hull inside the ship. maybe convert it to some other form of energy that's easier to store.
and then you can use it to power weapons or engines.

[Anonymous No.1534258]

>>1534250

You can't just convert heat to electricity or anything like that. It's not that easy. Plus any conversion would create its OWN heat too. You could never convert it fast enough.

[Anonymous No.1534270]

>>1534174
>Nuclear warfare: Mutually assured destruction for all involved: Not feasible. Not gonna happen.
I suppose you're trying to be sarcastic, but FUCK YEAH. If USA and Russia didn't blow themselves up during the cold war, then no one will.

[Anonymous No.1534273]

>>1534250

Heat engines don't work that way.

People assume that making a spacecraft unmanned will solve the issue of a thermal signature, but the temperatures necessary to keep computers and machines operational are still so high that the difference is inconsequential with regards to detection.

[Anonymous No.1534277]

>>1534270

You're a fucking idiot and you obviously have no idea how close a war truely was between the two nations.

[Anonymous No.1534289]

>>1534258
>You can't just convert heat to electricity
yes you can. lrn2 thermocouples. right now it's incredibly inefficient, but it won't be in the future.

[Anonymous No.1534297]

>>1534289

Will never be 100% efficient so you'll always generate excess heat. also good luck stopping any heat escaping your hull.

[Anonymous No.1534301]

>>1534277
Why would they have chosen to rule over a heap of ash when they could rule over vas empires. You are delusional, it was all a big bluff.

[Anonymous No.1534314]

>>1534289

If you had learned about thermocouples you'd know that they don't run on magic, which is what you would need to pull heat from a cold exterior to a hot interior and them generate power from it without spewing heat everywhere.

>right now it's incredibly inefficient, but it won't be in the future

lrn2thermodynamics while you're at it.

[Anonymous No.1534315]

>>1534301
Oh god I hope you're trolling

[Anonymous No.1534332]

>>1534297
imagine a peltier cell, but as a sphere, where the cold side is the outer layer, hot side is the inner layer, and the centre is filled with a heatsink. when the heatsink is "full", you reverse the polarity and cool it again.

[rawrs !8yF//RaWRs No.1534336]

Would it be possible to emit some kind of blanketing radiation/particles in close combat that would render sensors/communication almost unusable at medium-long range? Something like an ultra wide area jamming signal.

[Anonymous No.1534340]

>>1534332

Fuck this thread and the high school students in it. I'm out of here.

[Anonymous No.1534343]

>>1534314
the excess heat will be stored. when you can't store any more you release it.
of course this could work only for a small period of time.

[Anonymous No.1534347]

>>1534343

Stored how? In a solid medium it would be mighty innefficient.

[Anonymous No.1534351]

>>1534332
>when the heatsink is "full", you reverse the polarity and cool it again.

HOLY SHIT THIS GUYS A GENIUS

JUST MOVE HEAT ALL TO ONE PLACE AND THEN LET IT FLOW DOWN TO THE COLD PLACE

NOW ALL HEATERS AND REFRIGERATORS CAN HAVE PERFECT EFFICIENCY

[Anonymous No.1534379]

>>1534351
>HURR i type faster than i think

no, i move heat from outside to inside when i need stealth, and than move it all back outside, when i don't need it anymore. no laws of thermodynamics were harmed in this experiment.

[Anonymous No.1534383]

>>1534379

Except that trying to move heat from outside to inside.

[Anonymous No.1534388]

>>1534343

You can't store heat that way at all. Your hot interior is also still radiating and compounding your problem. You may as well claim you're going to shunt it into hyperspace.

What you might do is briefly lower your external temperature a few degrees. This is both entirely insufficient (still not cold enough) and very short-lived (you couldn't keep it up for an hour on a probe, let alone weeks or months) before your external temperature rises back to its previous level because heat buildup forces its way back out. Then you have to release the excess you tried to "store", which will turn you into a goddamn beacon.

>>1534379
>no laws of thermodynamics were harmed in this experiment

lrn2thermodynamics

[Anonymous No.1534396]

>>1534379
>i move heat from outside to inside when i need stealth, and than move it all back outside, when i don't need it anymore
>no laws of thermodynamics were harmed in this experiment.

It's like I'm back in high school again.

[Anonymous No.1534419]

>>1534396
so far i didn't hear any convincing argument as to why it can't work.

[Anonymous No.1534466]

>>1534419

Not much heat in deep space bro.

[Anonymous No.1534496]

>>1534419

Ask your science teacher for a refresher on the thermodynamics module, because you fucking slept through it.

But first, since you made the original claim that this would be possible, tell us how you think thermodynamics allows for it so we can ridicule you further.

[Anonymous No.1534572]

>>1533901
You have a civilization everywhere in space; you probably extract Helium3 from giant gazes planet.
If they don't have more than 3 point of observation they just merit to DIE FROM RELATIVISTIC MISSILE.

I don't count "Stealth due to enemy dumbness" stealth.

>>1533922
Let's suppose nobody see you accelerate : you are still above the 3° Kelvin that is behind you even if you where an actual ROCK, why ? Because the SUN light you.

>>1533998
You can, that's how we detect our own probes.
Way closer yet unpowered you can already count the billion of debris smaller than 1mm that is above us.

But any interesting thruster is going to reveal you, unless it's a relativistic missile and be so speedy that nobody will see you before you are 1000km away from your target.

>>1534249
This.
Planet are the greatest way to change trajectory while using only a few fuel.
Put mass produced radar/telescope a 3 key point around them and you can cover everything.
If one of them is destroyed you are automatically averted.

[Anonymous No.1534709]

tldr: most of this thread
What's up guise? Stealth in space?
Cold spaceship faggot is a faggot.
BUT... then the other day I started reading about metamaterials. Supposedly an optical cloaking device is a realistic potential application. Does /sci/ think this stuff could somehow hide a spaceship in interplanetary space? Why? Why not?

[Anonymous No.1534824]

>>1534709
Meta-material will only deflect the light coming from behind you, you still have to get rid of the one you generate.
And those need to be under the influence of a sort of electromagnetic wave to do that, meaning it can't go on an unpowered spaceship.

At least it does could help you increase laser efficiency.

[Anonymous No.1534889]

>>1534496
>Ask your science teacher
i'm out of school for like 8 years now.

anyway, here goes:
hull mass is 10^6 kg, it has temperature of 300 K, and it's made of aluminium with specific heat of 920 J/kg*K . and we need to cool it down to cosmic background of ~ 3 K.
that means we have to dump 10^6 * 920 * (300 - 3) = 273 GJ of heat
we want to store this heat inside ship. so we use a heat pump to transfer it to heat storage. our heat pump has efficiency, let's say, for simplicity, it's fixed at 1,2, independent of delta t. so we dump the total of 273 * 1,2 = 327 GJ.
now, we'll store it in a water tank. it has initial temperature of 275 K, and target temperature of 360 K. specific heat of water is 4190 J/kg*K
amount of water required is 327 *10^9 / (4190 * (360-275)) = 918*10^6 kg.
(obviously the tank will have to be even bigger, because it has to store the heat from ship's systems,which i didn't take into account).
so yeah, that's a lot. we need to invent more practical storage medium.

now, let's say we want to cool the water tank again to prepare the ship for the next stealth run. we run the heat pump in reverse, and dump the heat to external radiators (these are retractable and hidden inside the hull in stealth mode). how much heat? 327*1,2 = 392 GJ.

i'm getting bored, so i'll leave computing the required heatsink area are to you...

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1536233]

>>1534889
>cool it down to cosmic background of ~ 3 K.
>heat pump has efficiency, let's say, for simplicity, it's fixed at 1,2,
Any cooling process slows as it approaches 0K. You also have to stock every watt of ship power. Life support if applicable, system power, and so on. And the heat pump slurps power; most of them these days put 3 joules on the 'hot' side for every 1 joule removed from the cold side. A ratio 1.2 is insanely optimistic, and it'll get worse as you approach 3K. Let's compromise and state that the heat pump sucks in 1 joule of heat from the hull for every two that it puts into the heatsink, which is pretty fair as the heatsink's temperature rises higher.

I'm unclear on what ship type you're considering, but with 10^6 kg you're talking about a big damn boat. Here's the Navy numbers:

The Nimitz Class aircraft carriers (not a very electronic boat really) carry a reactor that normally operates at 194 MW. The vessel displaces 100,000 tons (90.7 * 10^6 kg). I'd like to find a power use for a nuclear sub but that's harder to nail down. An interesting spaceship would need rather a lot of power to skitter around to system; but I won't nail down a particular number.

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1536237]

>>1536233
Most fission reactors continue to generate about 7% of their operating output heat as decay products, once they've been operating for a while. This decreases over time, to 1.5% at 1 hour and 0.4% after a day, and 0.2% after a week. Fusion reactors won't have this problem, of course. What this means is that a fission-powered ship will have to have EVEN MORE power stored. Fusion reactors, on the other hand, will often deal with extremely high reactor temperatures inside your shroud of cold.

Inside the ship, all heat is constantly trying to go downhill - in this case, to the hull that you're working so hard to chill. Also, all hot systems are trying to cook the lifesystem, so you have to keep these areas carefully monitored. For the first week a fission-powered ship will struggle to keep its reactor glow from overwhelming the ability of stored power to cool it. A fusion ship wouldn't be much better off while it refrigerates the reactor from stored power. The second week won't go any better, nor the third...how long is this stealth run? The cooling will take so much energy that, if power storage is so easy, why have a reactor at all?

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1536817]

Couple points for the thermocouple guys. They do not turn heat into electricity. They generate electricity from the movement of heat. And this generation makes more heat. So trying to use a thermocouple to "turn heat into energy" is just wrong.

As for "moving heat anywhere you want". We have never, EVER had that ability. We never will. And heat has no polarity. Heat tries to equalize to the environment around it, attempting to leave areas of higher heat for areas of lower heat and following the paths of least resistance. What we have done with cooling technology is taken advantage of heat's natural movement and used that dissipate it faster.

My "stealth" idea still has the craft detected from millions of miles away, just camouflaged as rocks. And proper identification still happens at an incredible distance. Hopefully though it'll still be an incredible shock as they coast at 100km/s with only a million km till weapon range left to the weapon, which will soon know it has been seen and activate to intercept and open fire.

That's pretty much your best bet. Hid inside something, COMPLETELY inside, and DO NOTHING, EVER. And you will still be seen from one hundred million miles away. You will still be identified at some point. The enemy will react to you and make choices on what will be complete information soon, so plan on them finding out immediately.

[Anonymous No.1537627]

>>1536817
>how long is this stealth run?
well, i was thinking it'll be in the span of hours, not months...

>A ratio 1.2 is insanely optimistic, and it'll get worse as you approach 3K.
Carnot cycle says that the efficiency gets better as the temperature difference increases...

>They do not turn heat into electricity. They generate electricity from the movement of heat.
they generate electicity by removing part of the heat that moves across the junction and turning it into electricity.

>As for "moving heat anywhere you want". We have never, EVER had that ability.
you don't have AC in your car?
basically what AC does is consume energy to move heat from heat source to heat sink. with efficiency of 2, your heat pump removes 1 joule of heat from heat source, consumes one joule of work, and dumps 2 joules of heat into heatsink.

[Anonymous No.1537635]

egas

[Anonymous No.1537644]

Petr F Hamilton's Night's Dawn trilogy has the only feasible fictional depiction of space combat ever.

[Anonymous No.1537660]

>>1537644
>only feasible fictional depiction of space combat ever.
no. read something from Larry Niven.

[Dr. Trintignant !Avug4yq7Ns No.1537793]

>>1537660

or, for that matter, Alastair Reynolds. Particularly the bit in the beginning of Redemption Ark about the Conjoiner/Demarchist war.

[Anonymous No.1537816]

I'd say long range tactical missile strikes, likely from a railgun type launcher. No friction to slow a projectile down, highly manueverable and small enough to escape visual detection.

[Anonymous No.1538049]

>>1537816
>railgun
>no friction
>whatthefuckamireading.jpg

[Anonymous No.1538074]

The first book of the Chronicles of Solace has some grade-A realistic space combat.
You shoot a volley with a railgun to where you project the target to most probably be, and then you shoot a spinal laser at him to burn his senses off just before the volley arrives at it's target. Or you blow a huge mass into relativistic shrapnel and perforate your target that way.

Also the whole causal problem of wormholes is kept in the forefront all the time, not to mention the possible problems with terraforming.

[Anonymous No.1538081]

why are we fighting over space? nobody cares about it, what we care about are resources. Taking a science fiction route again, the only combat that may be done in space would be firing an unmanned missile at say an asteroid mining station run by robots.

Or taking out a spy satellite.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1538099]

>>1537627
>they generate electicity by removing part of the heat that moves across the junction and turning it into electricity.

No, they do not convert heat waves into electrons. That is physically impossible nonsense.

>basically what AC does is [TECHNOBABBLE FROM STAR TREK]

...Ok, thought you were someone that could learn. You're actually a troll. Got it. Well at least we both agree the whole thing is impossible.

[Anonymous No.1538101]

>>1538099

>> Implying electrons is electricity

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1538128]

>>1538101
Oh, I am sorry, let me rephrase. ELECTRICITY IS ELECTRONS! Better?

[Anonymous No.1538146]

>>1538128

Wrong. It's just the flow of negative charge.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1538156]

>>1538146
>No, it's just exactly what you said.

...I don't think you know what negative charge is.

[Anonymous No.1538203]

ITT: u mad

[Anonymous No.1538209]

>>1538156

Electrons is not negative charge. They have that property, but electricity is not electrons.

[Anonymous No.1538224]

>>1538209
Electricity is the movement of electrons, no?

[None !caG84MXea2 No.1538234]

Read Asimov's Foundation series. It has some realistic space fighting. Just ignore all the outdated shit.

[Anonymous No.1538236]

>>1538224

No. It can be modelled that way in a simplistic manner, however it doesn't encompass all electrical phononema.

The better way of thinking of it is either a flow of negative charge in one direction, or positive charge n the other.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1538237]

>>1538224
And electrons never stop moving.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1538248]

>>1538236
Most of the thread was great, but persistent troll here is persistent.

[Anonymous No.1538252]

>>1538248

It's not a troll, but your high school level of understanding of electricity is wrong.

[Anonymous No.1538457]

>>1538234
Foundation ? Sorry but it's oversimplified because it's not the point of the story until the 2 last books where "something even better, smaller, faster, stronger" is created in order to tell you that distance won't even be a problem anymore.

As for "realism" they have "Energy field" and 3km long warship and of course FTL that can't go near gravity field.
The most evolved strategy is "attract enemies at one position, and wait for another Fleet to FTL massively".

I have yet to find a story that can use realistic element and still have space battle. (I only found very small extract)

[Anonymous No.1538556]

>>1538099
wow, you sure act arrogant for someone who fails the basics of thermodynamics

>That is physically impossible nonsense.
HURRR.
converting thermal energy into electrical energy is impossible nonsense?
if the only energy input into a thermocouple is heat, and the output is heat+electricity, and you claim that no heat is converted to electricity, where does the extra energy come from???

>[TECHNOBABBLE FROM STAR TREK]
i just described the operation of a common heat pump. what is wrong with you?

[Tribersman No.1538701]

>>1538556
> converting thermal energy into electrical energy is impossible nonsense?
Not without wasting heat by doing so. It's part of the law of thermodynamic.
The key word is WASTE.

What you described is a 100% efficient system, and this is impossible. The heat pump itself will have to be cooled.
And you can't keep heat from radiating in every direction.

But anyway if it's for stealth again, It's still impossible for a lot of other reason

[Anonymous No.1538752]

>>1538701
>What you described is a 100% efficient system
i never did. maybe you misunderstood my description?
the extra heat created by inefficiency is accounted for, it gets stored in the tank and will eventually get radiated into space. it doesn't magically disappear anywhere.
notice that in my original example, i removed 273 gigajoules of heat from hull, but then I had to dissipate 327 gigajoules. if course, in real life the difference will be much bigger.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.1538808]

>>1538752
Dude posting as Tribersman, I figured mister "I can make heat go where-ever I want" is a troll at this point. Troll not, not taking him seriously anymore.

And to the rest of you kids, what i said about how heat works is true. You can not make heat go anywhere in the sense of " I just make it go into a heat sink" and store it indefinitely. Heat is always trying to equalize with the environment, traveling from areas of higher heat into areas with less heat, tending along paths of least resistance. Taking advantage of this behavior is how all of our cooling systems work to move and get rid of heat.

[Anonymous No.1538968]

>>1538808
I'm not a troll, and you completely misunderstood my concept. I never claimed i can store heat indefinitely, or move it around without losses. Instead of angry knee-jerk reactions, try to work on your reading comprehention...

[Anonymous No.1539078]

I think speed is the key. Figure out where you want to get to in a solar system and accelerate to that point as close to light speed as you can, giving your opponent as little warning as possible.
Sending an unmanned ship at screamingly fast speeds to just smash into a planet or space station would be effective too. Numbers would be helpful as well, along with striking from ever angle.

[Anonymous No.1539099]

man, fictional space battles are so lame

[Anonymous No.1539115]

Star wars ships fly like their in atmosphere in a vacuum.

For space battles done right: See Battlestar Galactica

[Anonymous No.1539119]

At this rate we'll never had a space program to have wars with.

[Anonymous No.1539139]

>>1539119


Don't blame him. Blame the Bush era congress for approving the Constellation program.

It basically wasted a decade for NASA.

Large conventional rockets will never allow us to do shit. They are too expensive, and far too dangerous.


A Launch Loop and VASIMR engines would allow us to colonize this fucking solar system in a matter of a half a century if we really wanted to.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_Specific_Impulse_Magnetoplasma_Rocket

America has first access to both of these technologies since most of the research and concepts are being developed there.

[Anonymous No.1539158]

>>1539139
Fuck that. Using conventional rockets to go to the moon and establish a base there is EXACTLY what we need to be doing. Even moreso now that we know it has water. There is no other viable technology. Moving away from Plain Ole Fucking Rockets with the shuttle program was the biggest disaster for the space program.

[Anonymous No.1539162]

>>1539158


You are a dinosaur.

[Anonymous No.1539164]

>>1539158


You believe that spending trillions of dollars to colonize the moon is a good idea?

Do you know how long that would take with rockets?

Are you aware of how little a rocket the size of the Orion V can carry?

It would take a century to build anything on the mono that way.

[Anonymous No.1539165]

>>1539158
Launch loops are fucking fantasy man. They wasn't able to raise that shitty hundred or so story Freedom tower since '01. Space exploration is fucked unless the sandniggers start developing their space tourism programs.
> my face now

[Anonymous No.1539168]

>>1539164

I meant Ares V. Orion is the capsule. Which carries just a few guys.

It is a joke.

[Anonymous No.1539170]

>>1539165


It does not necessarily have to be a Launch Loop.

It could be an orbital space plane. Which are quite real.

The British developed the SKYLON concept plane.

NASA at one point planned on making the shuttle work in a similar way, but the faggot CIA and congress forced them to stick to rockets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_Engines_Skylon

[Anonymous No.1539179]

I think it's funny, that an agency that's the bitch of the government is still the most advanced in the planet. Maybe in the universe.
That's America for you...

>Daytona and
yup, Daytona's great too

[Anonymous No.1539186]

Guess what the Skylon reminds me of?

[Anonymous No.1539188]

>>1539186
Serenity!

[Anonymous No.1539214]

>>1527469
>because orbital bombardment renders a ground military useless
now im just playing along but,
you might either
a)want the planet or location intact
b)try fighting guerrilas with bombers leads to mucho failo

[Anonymous No.1539327]

I doubt I will witness recreational missions to the moon in my lifetime, and I see the colonization of mars happening only with the cooperation of the greatest nations on Earth. I see no future where space battles of any kind occur. I see no future where there is even a need for weapons on a spaceship.

Currently, we're eliminating forms of warfare, not making more. If you want to be a military man and not die, join the Air Force or the Navy. sixty years ago joining the Air Force or the Navy was all but a death sentence.

We no longer fight on fronts and most wars are considered police action.

I see our only future conflicts being preventing a hot war with less educated and enlightened nations (although calling some western nations enlightened is very charitable). These conflicts will continue until we focus on preventing insane ideologies and violent, oppressed masses through education and international amnesty.

I'm not cynical enough to think feasible space battles will predate a global confederacy.

[Anonymous No.1539369]

>>1534108
Are you sure its the gasses that move that fast though?? Or just the shockwave moving trhrough the air?

[Anonymous No.1539390]

Has anyone here played EVE online?

Despite the fact that it is boring as fuck most of the time, I found the ship battles to be immersive and actually fairly realistic.

[Anonymous No.1539397]

Everybody her should read Jack Campbell's "THE LOST FLEET" series - there is your neutonian, serious space battles. Those have the most realistic space combat described ever since the include the massive distances in space, relativistic speeds and their effects on combat. As much as I love PFH Night's Dawn, it still leaves more room for fiction than science.

[Anonymous No.1539419]

>>1539390
LOLEVE

[Lone Wanderer !K.aeLxKxZI No.1539420]

>>1539390

EVE combat, especially large scale battles, mirrors naval combat. Much moreso than realistic space combat would unfold.

[Lone Wanderer !K.aeLxKxZI No.1539439]

>>1539390

EVE combat, especially large scale battles, mirrors naval ship to ship combat. Much moreso than realistic space combat would unfold.

[Anonymous No.1539440]

>>1539390
>EVE
>spaceships have no inertia and top speed limited to few hundred m/s
sorry, not /sci/ related

[Anonymous No.1539447]

>>1539440
This. fuck that game.

[Anonymous No.1539451]

>>1539439
You mean, like the rate of fire for the turrets is counted in minutes instead of seconds? Or everybody having a blackout and die horribly?

[Anonymous No.1539455]

>>1539439
>implying EVE pvp combat uses any sort of formations.
Are you fucking kidding me? EVE is just mobile platforms that can shoot and that's it, no realism whatsoever.

[снайпер No.1539464]

>>1539439
Eve doesn't model naval combat even remotely.

It very closely resembles shitty MMO combat, where players beat on each other for 5 minutes while cycling through a bunch of ability cooldowns and timers.

The *very least* that needs to be done to improve eve's combat mechanics is to add a flanking modifier. That single act opens up an entire slew of new tactics and strategies, and more importantly, they don't revolve around having the perfect counter.

But it's pointless to even talk about this, eve's combat will never be changed for the better. People are too familiar with it how it is to change.

[снайпер No.1539473]

>>1539464
Also, don't take this the wrong way. I like eve, I think it's by far the best MMO out right now. [Planetside was better before SOE fucked it]

But the combat mechanics in eve really truly do suck. The biggest draw of the game is the cutthroat player-driven setting.

[Anonymous No.1539475]

>>1539464
>eve's combat will never be changed
Well, at least not within the next 18 months.

[Tribersman No.1539485]

>>1538968
Troll or not, I may as well explain why this belief is wrong, this is /sci/ after all.

The problem reside in "how are you going to keep the heat from flowing back"
This is not a "sort" of battery where you put as much "heat/energy" as you can until you have to liberate it.

When it come to transfer of heat we can only transfer it into a fluid and store it in a tank made of material that resist the heat and don't transfer too much heat.

The fact the pump will heat itself by doing so is why we would better link whatever is heating by convection to the tank directly.
This only work if somehow every single cm² of the hull don't let heat go through. We have yet to discover a matter than can do that.

Saying that it's stealth depend of whatever the situation ask for but it's already far from what people would like to see.

Just in this thread we've go from "Sulaco Badass Marine transport" (that hide in front of the sun) to "small powerless drone with no humans aboard that drift for month without moving to deliver electronic warfare"

But as long as we call that "stealth" people still believe someone find a way around.

[Anonymous No.1539495]

EVE is such a fucking wasted potential.

It could be incredibly good, but the developers are afraid to change it and lose their fan base.
that and it's a money pit.

but whatever i should gb2 /v/

[Anonymous No.1539566]

>>1539485
so design the tank as a giant thermos.
it might not be practical after all, but it's mostly an engineering problem. it could work in theory, despite what the mad tripfag said.

[Anonymous No.1539586]

>>1539485
>We have yet to discover a matter than can do that.

except black holes

[Anonymous No.1539726]

>>1539473
> EVE is the best MMORPG
...and that tell a lot about how much all of they suck.
But hey ! that will get better with the time it's not like the way they hear money is based on the time you LOSE doing any action, the number of element they can generate automatically or how much simpleminded people they can trick in .... ho wait, it is.

tl:tr
MMO suck because of how they work.

They didn't do any "simulator" like Mechwarrior 3 or Operation Flashpoint since a while now.

Yet I will come back, I'm sure of it. Rest to know how much I'll have to spend on a PC to play them.
(Pict incredibly related)

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1539933]

>>1537627
>well, i was thinking it'll be in the span of hours, not months...
How fucking fast do you think you can go? Damn son, you're talking about crossing millions of km in "hours."
>Carnot cycle says that the efficiency gets better as the temperature difference increases...
The Carnot Cycle says that there is more energy in the temperature difference as T(heatsink) - T(hull) increases. But you're pumping uphill, so this is a problem, not a solution.

>they generate electicity by removing part of the heat that moves across the junction and turning it into electricity.
That heat has to be going downhill. To get energy from heat you have to catch it going from hot to cold. And if you say "Well I'll run my heat pump with that power" then so help me god I'll get whatever educational certificates you claim burned.

More to come

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1539967]

>>1538457
I enjoyed the Mote in God's Eye, mainly because they carefully chose their magic technology (FTL with major limits, shielding with major limits) and the authors carefully thought out the effects of these technologies.

>>1538556
>if the only energy input into a thermocouple is heat, and the output is heat+electricity, and you claim that no heat is converted to electricity, where does the extra energy come from???
A thermocouple's input is not heat. A thermocouple is put between hot and cold, and it uses that heat flow to do work. Think of a sterling engine; it only runs because one side is heated, just like any thermodynamic engine. Making it out of solid-state electronics doesn't change the fact that it only works by the process of heat flowing to cold. Moving heat from cold to hot takes more power.

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1540000]

>>1538752
The heat pump gets warmer as it works. Is it cooling itself too? This is why you want an external cooling source. For every joule that you pump into the heatsink, the heat pump will emit two to three joules of low-grade heat. As long as the heat pump is part of the high-temperature heatsink this could work. It would be hugely inefficient, and get even more so as the heatsink grew warmer and the hull colder. Eventually you're refrigerating a 4K object and rejecting heat to a 400K sink, and this takes a lot of energy. The carnot cycle works against you that way, unless you're trying to say that I can get free power by setting my freezer even colder.

>>1539158
What's the value in a base on the moon reached at a cost of $10000 per pound? I'd like to see real heavy launch vehicles, but all the interesting fuels are banned currently.
>>1539165
>They wasn't able to raise that shitty hundred or so story Freedom tower since '01.
Lrn to spell. Also, they've been carefully excavating the remains of an old building without disturbing the walls keeping out the goddamn river.
>>1539566
No, the problem isn't the tank at all. The FIRST AND FOREMOST issue is heat flow into the hull. This involves an insulating layer between the real hull and the fake one. Somehow you'd better be able to extend radiators through this insulating layer to dump heat or your ship will die.

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1540010]

Secondly, your design has to somehow allow the heatpump to pump heat into the thermos without heat flowing out on its own. Yet another layer of near-perfect heat rejection. Even radiation through vacuum is enough to upset this. As the temperature difference increases, the energy required to pump heat uphill increases as well. Draw a Carnot cycle between Thull and Tsink. The energy to be gained from letting heat flow downhill is the integral of that, and the energy to pump heat uphill is the opposite, along with inefficiencies. You work HARDER to move heat from cold to hot. You seem to be confused about that, or very inefficient at explaining what you mean.

Thirdly, some of your ship's systems are hot. If you're foolish enough to use your reactor to power all this, then you're constantly adding megawatts of heat to the heatsink (through that poor poor heatpump). Any reactor will generate a lot of heat, so don't throw technobabble out about how your main energy source isn't trouble. Assuming that you have enough power stored to do all this from batteries or capacitors or whatever, you have to cool off the reactor, engines, and nozzles, or they'll cook the crew. Next you need to start pumping heat from the stealth hull uphill into the heatsink. To do this, the heat engine has to have thermal contact with the stealth hull and the hotsink, and start pumping uphill. It must dump its waste heat into the hotsink or into the ship hull. You may need another heatpump to pump heat from the hull to the hotsink as well; because the only place for heat to flow is out to the stealth hull you've laboriously cooled.

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1540041]

This is not an efficient process, because running a heat pump over such a temperature difference (almost 300K!) involves forcing a large carnot cycle backwards. You'd need a solid-state one unless you use some very interesting working fluids (What's liquid at 3K and either liquid at 300+K or you eat the compression energy).

Regardless of what the COP of the heatpump does, you are pumping a shit-ton of joules uphill. This isn't just pumping heat out of a stealth hull of a given size, it's keeping the systems inside that stealth hull at operating temperatures, rejecting waste heat to the hotsink inside it all, and keeping the heat in the hotsink. This system also has to work as a ship, meaning that radiators will have to pop through the heavily-insulated stealth hull, and so on.

This is only marginally useful at middle range and for a limited time. Generally speaking you would be stuck on the vector you chose before entering stealth mode - and picking vectors is extremely visible. "Whipping around" a planet will change your course but not enough to approach someplace invisibly except in a few circumstances. It's a neat idea, but I don't see it being practical and useful.

[Anonymous No.1540079]

>>1539933
>>1539967
I heard a lot of good thing about "Mote in God's Eye", I'll have to read it. (first on my list is Enders)

>>1539586
Make me want to become a writer and I'll write something around "Shkadov thruster" used for truly Megascale fight between sufficiently advanced (and indistinguishable from magic) aliens.

"ship" so big that you can navigate in their shadow for years.
Homeworld 2 related.

[Anonymous No.1540094]

those ships could be using superheated plasma not lasers

[Anonymous No.1540095]

Are we still talking about goddamn stealth space ships? Leave the topic the fuck alone already. I never understood why is "stealth in space" such an appealing concept to people. I personally never thought about it as a plausible and practical way of waging war in space until I read the nerd rants that it's not possible. Seriously why do people give that much of a fuck about it? If we go by "what's cool", my opinion is that knowingly sliding into almost certain death with a cew of several hundred people on top of over 9000 tons of highly reactive fuel and a shitload of nuclear warheads is much cooler than badass stealth carriers.

[Anonymous No.1540162]

>>1540095
Inertia.

They all continue to explain basic fact to a guy who probably don't survey the thread anymore.
But when somebody will actually ask again it's going to restart again.

Personally, next time that happen I'll only post :
THERE IS NO STEALTH IN SPACE, EVER.
Read this page.
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3w.html#nostealth
If you still think it's possible read it until you don't.

>>1539158
You'll want to see this link about why chemical thruster are limited.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXofYP_VfUg&feature=player_embedded#!
Sure It take 6 month of travel but if we can use more powerful source of energy it could take less than one.

[I set my hand on fire and it was fun No.1540226]

>>1540095
I was continuing an argument about heat pumps mainly.
>9000 tons of highly reactive fuel and a shitload of nuclear warheads is much cooler than badass stealth carriers.
Very much so. But fuel shouldn't be in bulk and reaction mass had better not be reactive.
>>1540162
Good luck explaining bout exhaust velocity being more important than thrust on long missions...

[Anonymous No.1543332]

I have a Bebop.

[Anonymous No.1545371]

Bleep Blop Sleath in space