/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4178307]

name my space ship.
also, insult my design

[Anonymous No.4178309]

>cargo
>in cm

[Anonymous No.4178319]

USS Poor Design
IDK its harder than you would think to come up with a spaceship name that insults your design.

[Anonymous No.4178326]

I propose we name it after some annoying tripfag, such as good old athens.

[Anonymous No.4178331]

>maneavers
Maneuvers?
>cargo cm
Did you mean cubic meters? Then it should be marked m³.

Also, did you note that 4 years of provisions for 100 people take an average of one metric tonne of provisions per day, water included, meaning 5000 people over 4 years would need about 73,000 tonnes of provisions.

And how is that ship supposed to defend it's rear. I don't see much weapons covering the six, meaning it's easy to cripple.

Also, the magazines for the torpedo launchers are at vulnerable points, meaning a magazine explosion seems likely. And the exposed magazines are right next to the main energy armaments, so a magazine hit is almost bound to take out the torpedoes and the turret next to them.

[Anonymous No.4178335]

>>4178326
>Athens
Holy shit, i've completely forgotten about him since hes been gone for how long?
He was one of my favorite trolls because he kept you on your toes, he would both alternately troll and be completely reasonable.

[Anonymous No.4178340]

clever: SS She's One Of Ours
classical: SS Chesma
pompous: SS Fist of The Emperor
silly: SS EssEss

[Anonymous No.4178352]

the GoodShip Bertha Prison Marooned Marie

[Anonymous No.4178357]

>>4178335
u mena aether?

[Anonymous No.4178366]

>Spaceship
>Aerodynamics

[Anonymous No.4178413]

Call it : S.S. XMS3

[Anonymous No.4178444]

>>4178309
>>4178331
oops, I ment cubic meters, not centimeters

[Anonymous No.4178455]

>>4178413
LOL'd

[Anonymous No.4178471]

Hurricane is best spaceship

[Anonymous No.4178497]

>>4178413

Hahahaha, oh wow.

[Anonymous No.4178525]

Could be better, but you put some work in

You need shielding beyond what you have, preferably rotatable independent of the ship and modular.

[Anonymous No.4178530]

>>4178331
Is that a vulcan?

[Anonymous No.4178533]

>>4178413
so obviously set up I don't even

[Anonymous No.4178541]

no gravity control - shit flies around, kills everyone onboard - failure.

[Anonymous No.4178548]

>>4178530
If you mean the real-world nuclear bomber, then no. Though the resemblance isn't totally coincidental.

If you mean some other vulcan, then you need to tell me what you mean.

[Anonymous No.4178551]

Where do you guys find the scheme of spaceships?

[Anonymous No.4178565]

>>4178548
I mean the V bomber, yeah. I ask because my granddad riveted the tails onto them

[Anonymous No.4178582]

You have a lot of forward thrust but minimal reverse thrust. Given (piratically) no friction in space you would take a very long time to slow down. Looks like for every 1min of acceleration you will need 4mins of breaking, possibly more.

[Anonymous No.4178615]

>>4178582
>thinks of only using retro's to slow down a spaceship

[Anonymous No.4178634]

hmmmmmm, im always getting angry when i see space-battles/ships that are so completely illogical like in star wars or even star trek.

what is the max. range of a high-end scifi laser? 1/2 or even 2 solar systems?
what exist in space mainly? ... space?

sooo, lets presume, humanity has to develop astro-warfare even at such a technological advance. battles in space would be similar to the WW2-submarine battles, where camouflage and sensors were most important.
in respect of the high range of future weapons, sensory has to be even more accurate and the hull of an future battleship has to be of a kind of blackness, that no one of us has ever seen before.
second, did i just see a hangar with small "fighters" in it? if yes, i hope they are unmanned ones. its such a stupid contradiction, to limit the two most biggest advantages of a small vessel - agility and quantity - by putting a human in there.
also, if there is no such thing like "hyperspace"-travelling and the ship as to accelerate traditionally to reach great distances, humans are also a limiting factor to this.
i think unmanned drones are very important in such a scenario, because they can act as torpedoes and/or decoy unit but have to appear in great numbers, so future battleships are like big carriers and electronic warfare would be very important too.

now go an burn your star wars books.

[Anonymous No.4178652]

>>4178634
They have infinite focus, but you have to account for interstellar medium. I don't know the numbers, but if you're firing a beam that's one wavelength thick it's naturally going to end a lot faster than 20 beams through paths even a small distance apart.

In my opinion, dumb bombs or mass weaponry are going to be the dirty nukes of the next millenium. There's no defence against a kiloton of carbon moving at 20km/s, and there's no way of stopping it if you change your mind.

Controlled drones are the new shoulder mounted missile. You fire them, control them, and then detonate them. There's no drone to drone combat, these are kamikazi systems. The technological cost of adding controls is arbitrarily small anyway.

Lasers are the strategic equivalent of a supersonic bomber. They can be stopped, but at a cost. I'm not sure what strategic role they'll play, but if it ever comes to ship to ship combat, you can bet they'd be used.

[Anonymous No.4178654]

>>4178634
There's one point to using several smaller ships instead of one big.

If a big ship is hit, it's dead. If a swarm of smaller ships is hit, the capability of the swarm is diminished, but it can still fight on.

[Anonymous No.4178656]

You guys need to get laid, why dont you all meet up in one place and fuck eachother, then come back into reality where these spaceships will only ever be in the movies.
If OP was a billionare corporate tycoon/military official, then i would have scrolled passed this thread without a second thought.

niggggaaaa

[Anonymous No.4178676]

>>4178319

USS Toyota

Accelerator sticks, engines burst into flames as it rams itself up Uranus.

[Anonymous No.4178678]

>>4178656
>mfw Richard Branston would slap your shit
>>4178676
I GARGLED ON MY MOUNTAIN DEW AND IT LANDED ON MY GENTOO

[Anonymous No.4178681]

>>4178652
>There's no defence against a kiloton of carbon moving at 20km/s.
Even the dumbest fucking computerized radar could plot the trajectory of the carbon an hour before it hits you and tell you to move ten meters in a direction perpendicular to the trajectory.

> you have to account for interstellar medium
Look at a ordinary star a few lightyears away, check what wavelengths managed the distance the best. Design your laser based on that, you now have a weapon that can cross lightyears!(although you'd need a fuckhuge aperture for beam cohesion)

>There's no drone to drone combat
Why not?

How about this instead, a 200kg thermonuclear warhead, with equivalent kinetic energy to your 1000ton ball of carbon would be travelling at 1350km/s. Now that nuke could have some simple magnetometric sensors, radar, or gravitometric device that can sense the vicinity of larger spaceships within a few kilometers range, and upon doing so it would detonate. Fire thousands of them in a grid pattern towards the general vicinity of the enemy.

[Anonymous No.4178690]

>>4178681
Looks like someone doesn't know how black bodies work. You can't plot the trajectory of a ball of carbon because you can't detect it, and by the time you can you're sustaining damage. If you're in a ship, sure, you're fine. On a planet, you're fucked.

Agreed on laser

Because it's inefficient. I think the whole spaceship battle idea is massively overblown.

The drones I mention would be like the warheads you mention. Instead of guided missiles, you have controllable explosive ships

[Anonymous No.4178692]

I hereby name thee
Star Destroyer

[Anonymous No.4178697]

I just emailed this to NASA with my name on it.

[Anonymous No.4178698]

Call them penetrator class optionally manned vessels, then name them after sol's other planets. This one is the Uranus penetrator

[Anonymous No.4178700]

>>4178690
>you have controllable explosive ships

We'll call them GUIDED MISSILES

[Anonymous No.4178701]

>>4178697
woe betide anyone who thinks this is actually useful

do you send them troll science as well?

[Anonymous No.4178702]

>>4178700
shh


The point is that they're fully autonomous, and in every way they operate like a ship. It's just that their method of attack is kamikaze.

[Anonymous No.4178703]

>>4178702
So...what's the difference?

A missile with missiles attached? Do the missiles attached to the missile also have missiles attached to them which themselves have missiles attached? Does one have a machine gun?

[Anonymous No.4178705]

>>4178703

[Anonymous No.4178706]

>>4178703
A missile gets launched and then carries on until it hits its target. A kamikaze ship can stop, or turn back, or land, or do anything a regular ship can. It's essentially a more flexible alternative to strapping an explosive to a bottle of liquid hydrogen

[Anonymous No.4178708]

>>4178706
But...it's still a guided missile, you can just bring it back if you want to. If it's got no ability to carry people or goods then it isn't a 'ship'. If it's only purpose is to kamikaze, to detonate, then it is a missile. It's just a smart missile that can be guided back home again (uh oh...I see the potential for accidents here).

[Anonymous No.4178712]

>>4178708
It can carry goods, it's just that the goods are volatile. A plane is still a plane, even if it's used in kamikaze attacks. It's still a plane even if its sole purpose is to be used in kamkaze attacks and it can't carry cargo or weapons.

[Anonymous No.4178720]

>>4178712
>The goods are volatile
Explosives, right?

> It's still a plane even if its sole purpose is to be used in kamkaze attacks and it can't carry cargo or weapons.
Really?


Anyway we're arguing semantics. The point is, the ship is armed with guided missiles/drones that can be fired at an enemy ship or installation to cause damage.

[Anonymous No.4178724]

>>4178708

>Ship 1 fires "attack drone."
>Ship 2 fires "Keep away drone."
>Ship 2's drone writes "Return to sender" on attack drone.
>Ship 1's face when.

[Anonymous No.4178725]

>>4178690
>A black body is an idealized physical body
Idealized physics doesn't exist. Your carbon ball would show up on various sensors. Also, at 20km/s there's ample time for it to heat up due to solar radiation, and black bodies also happen to be very good at radiating energy so passive means would detect it long before it got close to doing any damage.

And even assuming it would be an actual black body you could still detect it via a number of methods, occlusions, gravitometrics, interaction with solar wind and probably a dozen other methods even more efficient methods. We could for example combine a high power nanosecond pulse laser that we sweep through open space with a passive sensor and look for the brief echo of hitting anything(black bodies reradiate based on their temperature, a high intensity pulse would result in a very particular re-radiation signature). Could be done with a solar powered platform for no particularly large cost and deployed in hundreds of thousands or millions.

Also, at 20km/s we'd still have five hours to slag it if we detect it around moon orbit. At only 1000ton a properly pimped laser could probably vaporize enough of it in short time to deflect the remnants.

[Anonymous No.4178731]

>>4178724
>Our missile is heading for US?
>It's OK, it's not a missile, it's a drone!
>But if it was a drone wouldn't we be able to stop it blowing US up?
>No, because it's an autonomous drone
>So it's a guided missile?
>NO! Look at it. It has wings and a pretend cockpit and stuff. It's clearly a drone plane.
>Bu--BOOOOOMMMMMBABAABABAGFGUAHAHAHAHHAAHHAAH

[Anonymous No.4178732]

Your ship's name is the Tipdrill Ramthruster Deluxe 9000

[Anonymous No.4178742]

>Max Speed: Attack
>Speed
>Attack
WAT

[Belisaurius No.4178760]

Lasers would work well, until someone adds a layer of aluminum (or anything reflective, really) to the outside of the ship. At that point the laser system would melt down before doing much more than scratch the paint.

Guided missiles are A) expensive since they can't exactly be reused and B) can be shot down. This isn't to say they're useless. A XEL mounted on a missile is one of the scariest things to defend against since as soon as you can shoot it down, it's already too late.

[Anonymous No.4178911]

>>4178760
>Lasers would work well, until someone adds a layer of aluminum
You aluminium foil would explode off the ship in the first brief nanosecond pulse. We're not talking about a laser pointer of ~1mW, we're talking something in the range of several hundred MW at least, even if you have a coating of 99.9% reflectivity you'll be soaking up far over 100 kW into the reflective coating, which being a thin layer will burn(react with surrounding materials) or simply vaporize very rapidly.

And lasers aren't found in a single wavelenght either, red, blue infrared or ultraviolet or xray and gamma ray lasers will all have different absorption spectras.

>Guided missiles are...
Haven't stopped anyone using them in ground warfare.

>A XEL
what the fuck is a XEL?

[Anonymous No.4178921]

Shit like this makes me wish I had a PhD in aerospace engineering and 20 years in the navy.

[Anonymous No.4178952]

>>4178935

[Anonymous No.4179144]

>>4178921

Ditto. ;_;

[Anonymous No.4179150]

USS Dorito 3D

[Anonymous No.4179154]

>>4179150
Holy fuck I lol'd so hard I almost choked.

[Belisaurius No.4179466]

>>4178911
Ah, but even the latest gen lasers can only fire at kilowatt levels and even those are chemical lasers which expend themselves after use.

Furthermore, lasers are inherently inefficient. Nobody has made a laser more than 50 percent efficient. Even free electron lasers top out at 65 percent IN THEORY, never mind in practice. The wasted energy turns into heat. Thus, shooting the enemy with a laser is doing more damage to yourself than to the enemy. To add insult to injury, adding anything reflective, and it doesn't have to be aluminum, cuts the efficiency down even more, increasing the power demands to blast through to impractical levels.

As for the XEL...
X-ray
Emitting
Laser

You take a bit of fissionable matter, uranium or plutonium for example. You then compress it enough that you trigger a nuclear reaction, but not one big enough for a nuclear detonation. While the mass doesn't explode, it creates a fuckton of radiation. Then, you use a parabolic mirror to focus this radiation forwards in a coherent beam.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_v128/ai_4060251/

[Anonymous No.4179585]

>>4178731
Looks like someone is too butthurt for the truth.

[Anonymous No.4180293]

tststs ...
my fellow n00ps, im a hobby scifi author and deeply in this shit and again, you have forgotten a very important aspect.

light-inflection.
a future military space vessel could be able to bend every intended wavelength around its body ... maybe not at 100% of the surface but still comparable to a stealth bomber (i know, a stealth bomber works different, stfu).
so, first, it has to be a phaser (some sort of particle beam), not laser and second, a commander has to decide to weather be cloaked and vulnerable or kind of protected and detectable.

another thing, that felt to short here is artificial intelligence - military manoeuvres - command and control frequencies - multifunctional drones. (and no, they wont be expensive, they grow in asteroids).
you cannot protect yourself against something you cant detect, so its of major importance to have something like a detection grid ... drones!
if some kinetic attack heads towards or near you and you dont want to reveal your position with a reaction ... drones.
you cannot check if all of the sensor-stimuli (remember vast space) are legit targets or if you are heading into a mine-drone-field by yourself ... drones.
the only way (ok, thats actually not true, but youll never know why :) ) to set up a fake signature without reveal at least a trace of yourself ... drones.
and at last, to strike without revealing your position ... ofc previous deployed drones.

keep in mind an auto-replication feature and electronic warfare.

thanks for the answers, e.g. i hadnt in mind the efficiency of lasers, that a nice additional anecdote somewhere.

[Anonymous No.4180351]

This is a great design.

You are under the age of 10, right?

[Anonymous No.4180474]

The hyperpotent 60M. Or, The Cosmicpossesser. I don't know.

[Anonymous No.4180606]

Here's a good name for the thing: "Nevah Bilt"

After all, there will NEVER FUCKING EVER be a manned military spacecraft, since there won't be Humans in space AT ALL by 30 years from now, due to Petroleum Starvation, the Resource Wars, and the approaching Last War.