Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Labor camp

4 (20%)

List of choices (would you like to be killed by woodchipper, firing squad, gascambers...)

8 (40%)

Choose how to die (with restrictions, or course, no "I want to be nuked in the dining hall")

6 (30%)

Generic Lethal injection

1 (5%)

Electroshock

0 (0%)

Life in prison

0 (0%)

Other (Specify)

1 (5%)

No opinion

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 20

[GreatWyrmGold]

It ha the benefit of stopping ship A from reaching rock B.

[miauw62]

Yeah, but owuldnt it be alot easier to put a bigass cannon on rock B to shoot ship A?

[GreatWyrmGold]

Yeah, but owuldnt it be alot easier to put a bigass cannon on rock B to shoot ship A?

Not if Rock B is controlled by the enemy.

[10ebbor10]

It ha the benefit of stopping ship A from reaching rock B.

But then again, you can just as easily do that with a single missile filled with a bunch of scrapnel. If it is spread out properly , a single object weighting 10 grams makes quite an impact.

As for stealth, our sensors aren't perfect. From a sufficient distance, a small cube which resonates heat/ EM radiation that matches the ship can easily be mistaken for it. Or you can shoot a flare in front of your ship to obscure your ship by overloading their sensors.

As for weaponry, a missile can be usefull, especially if it leaves it's engine of for a large part of the Journey. Shrapnel or other thrown rocks might work too, and laser, while being terrible weapons, have the advantage of being light speed.

Yeah, but owuldnt it be alot easier to put a bigass cannon on rock B to shoot ship A?

Not if Rock B is controlled by the enemy.

Then why would we want to stop the ship from reaching it. We should have stopped it when it departed.

[miauw62]

Laser weaponry has the advantage of being awesome.

[10ebbor10]

Laser weaponry has the advantage of being awesome.

As well as mostly useless if your enemy paints his ship in reflective paint. (Which makes hitting it easier though).

Even when it can hit the enemy whitout being reflected, it has the disadvantage it relies on melting the enemy ship, rather than deforming it.

[Wimopy]

Laser weaponry has the advantage of being awesome.

As well as mostly useless if your enemy paints his ship in reflective paint. (Which makes hitting it easier though).

Even when it can hit the enemy whitout being reflected, it has the disadvantage it relies on melting the enemy ship, rather than deforming it.

Supposing the enemy uses rockets, the fuel would prove quite a target for a laser, I think. Same goes for anti-matter-based propulsion. Melt the container, and get the hell away unless you like being in epic explosions.

Anyway, I'm open to any roles needing stealth. Deception, sabotage, subterfuge, scouting... in any vehicle.. oh, and assassination.

[10ebbor10]

That's missile defense, not defense against the rocket itself. In order to burn through a real ships armor and hit the fuel storage, your laser is going to have a tad more problems.

Also, antimatter needs to be magnetically contained, and those magnets need good cooling. Which makes it a bit harder for your laser to melt through.

As for antimatter weaponry. Why bother using a container. Just use a magnetic field to sling it in your opponents general direction. Only a small part needs to hit to seriously damage him.

[GreatWyrmGold]

It ha the benefit of stopping ship A from reaching rock B.

But then again, you can just as easily do that with a single missile filled with a bunch of scrapnel. If it is spread out properly , a single object weighting 10 grams makes quite an impact.

As for stealth, our sensors aren't perfect. From a sufficient distance, a small cube which resonates heat/ EM radiation that matches the ship can easily be mistaken for it. Or you can shoot a flare in front of your ship to obscure your ship by overloading their sensors.

As for weaponry, a missile can be usefull, especially if it leaves it's engine of for a large part of the Journey. Shrapnel or other thrown rocks might work too, and laser, while being terrible weapons, have the advantage of being light speed.

The answer to both questions is two parts point defense, one part mobility. What kind of captain wouldn't have his spaceship move out of the trajectory of a missile?

Yeah, but owuldnt it be alot easier to put a bigass cannon on rock B to shoot ship A?

Not if Rock B is controlled by the enemy.

Then why would we want to stop the ship from reaching it. We should have stopped it when it departed.

We might not...but they would. Say, if we were moving supplies from Mars to Luna, or an experimental weapon going from the Asteroid Belt to some more populous colony.

Laser weaponry has the advantage of being awesome.

As well as mostly useless if your enemy paints his ship in reflective paint. (Which makes hitting it easier though).

Even when it can hit the enemy whitout being reflected, it has the disadvantage it relies on melting the enemy ship, rather than deforming it.

Lasers have the twin advantages of moving at light speed, making dodging difficult if even possible, and of being immune to point defense, AND melting part of a ship's hull would allow positive pressure within the hull to do the rest. Downsides: Reflective paint, development time.

That's missile defense, not defense against the rocket itself. In order to burn through a real ships armor and hit the fuel storage, your laser is going to have a tad more problems.

Also, antimatter needs to be magnetically contained, and those magnets need good cooling. Which makes it a bit harder for your laser to melt through.

As for antimatter weaponry. Why bother using a container. Just use a magnetic field to sling it in your opponents general direction. Only a small part needs to hit to seriously damage him.

The laser things make sense. Downsides of antimatter: How do you get it, and if you miss you leave a chunk of antimatter floating around frequently-travelled space.

[Dariush]

The answer to both questions is two parts point defense, one part mobility. What kind of captain wouldn't have his spaceship move out of the trajectory of a missile?

Do you really believe that in an age of space combat and perpetually moving ships (because stopping would require careful calibrations and doesn't make any goddamn sense) people won't use smart self-targeting missiles?

[GreatWyrmGold]

The answer to both questions is two parts point defense, one part mobility. What kind of captain wouldn't have his spaceship move out of the trajectory of a missile?

Do you really believe that in an age of space combat and perpetually moving ships (because stopping would require careful calibrations and doesn't make any goddamn sense) people won't use smart self-targeting missiles?

Alright, two parts point defense, zero parts mobility. Happy?

[GoombaGeek]

Design missile hijacking missiles to hit the other missiles and turn them around and shoot at the other missiles.

[Vorthon]

I've been thinking about terraforming, and my mind keeps wandering back to 'keep walloping mars with asteroids'. That, or factories designed to produce rather strong greenhouse gases.

[TopHat]

Air Force: Fighter / bomber sized space ships.
Navy: anything bigger.

Missiles: antimissilemissiles.
Problem Solved.

[GoombaGeek]

I've been thinking about terraforming, and my mind keeps wandering back to 'keep walloping mars with asteroids'. That, or factories designed to produce rather strong greenhouse gases.

Airlift China and the US to Mars. Build an inter-planetary gas-ferrying system. Also, buy three SUVs for every person.

mission accomplished