Print

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

[forsaken1111]

So in your sense, the smaller the ship is the better. I agree with this. But keep in mind that we will not start out with gigantic ships. I reckon they will be quite small, so the distance of half a light second would be dramaticly increased.

I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about. I wasn't talking to you and I didn't say anything about small ships.

[RedKing]

The same as the first. Time and reasourses. It will painful and long to build a computer that would be smart enough to direct ships without going stupid. Live pilots are more reliable to me because they have the ability to look at problem and solve it. Live pilots won't ever break or require maintenance. (On the field of battle that is. Come on, A guys gota lay back and take a break once in a while!) Early ship computers will be not smart enough to guide ships all by themselves and they will cost improble amounts of money. If I was in charge of the military, I would always opt for the mind and ingenuity of Humanity.

Really? A target intercept is purely a mathematical problem. Computers that we have NOW can solve equations on the fly to determine the optimal intercept path to a moving object. I mean, hell....we have torpedoes now that if they lose their initial target, will begin performing manuevers to hunt for a new target. This isn't rocket science (pun intended). Launch drones with small, high-performance engines. Drone has been fed target vector info at launch from the firing vessel. At this point, it's reduced to a problem of "You are at point A. Your target is at point B, heading in vector X. Catch up to it." With a kinetic-kill drone, you wouldn't even need an explosive payload, just ram the drone into your target.

The problem is determine the exact position and heading of the target at the time of firing. Beyond even half a light second of distance, the target could have moved significantly from where your light-speed sensors reported it, as well as changed course. You have to predict where it will be when your shell arrives, not know where it is at that moment.

Unless we develop some massively impressive thrust technology, course corrections are going to have a fairly minor effect over short distances. Objects traveling at speeds of thousands of meters per second do not turn on a dime. That's why I think the torpedo/drone model is the one that makes the most sense. You're very likely to get the drone close to the true position of the target, and at that point the drone can use its own sensors and onboard guidance to make the corrections needed to achieve successful intercept.

[Johnfalcon99977]

So in your sense, the smaller the ship is the better. I agree with this. But keep in mind that we will not start out with gigantic ships. I reckon they will be quite small, so the distance of half a light second would be dramaticly increased.

I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about. I wasn't talking to you and I didn't say anything about small ships.

You know what? Forget what I just said and lets just go with "I agree with you"

[forsaken1111]

Unless we develop some massively impressive thrust technology, course corrections are going to have a fairly minor effect over short distances. Objects traveling at speeds of thousands of meters per second do not turn on a dime. That's why I think the torpedo/drone model is the one that makes the most sense. You're very likely to get the drone close to the true position of the target, and at that point the drone can use its own sensors and onboard guidance to make the corrections needed to achieve successful intercept.

Drones are a possibility, though I question the range and mobility of a small autonomous vehicle in space unless we have by this point developed some very efficient fuel solutions. Assuming we have, yes a drone near the target would have a much easier chance of hitting. It would also have a corresponding reduction in firepower due to its small size.

So in your sense, the smaller the ship is the better. I agree with this. But keep in mind that we will not start out with gigantic ships. I reckon they will be quite small, so the distance of half a light second would be dramaticly increased.

I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about. I wasn't talking to you and I didn't say anything about small ships.

You know what? Forget what I just said and lets just go with "I agree with you"

I don't want you to agree with me, most of the things you have said are ridiculous.

[Johnfalcon99977]

The same as the first. Time and reasourses. It will painful and long to build a computer that would be smart enough to direct ships without going stupid. Live pilots are more reliable to me because they have the ability to look at problem and solve it. Live pilots won't ever break or require maintenance. (On the field of battle that is. Come on, A guys gota lay back and take a break once in a while!) Early ship computers will be not smart enough to guide ships all by themselves and they will cost improble amounts of money. If I was in charge of the military, I would always opt for the mind and ingenuity of Humanity.

Really? A target intercept is purely a mathematical problem. Computers that we have NOW can solve equations on the fly to determine the optimal intercept path to a moving object. I mean, hell....we have torpedoes now that if they lose their initial target, will begin performing manuevers to hunt for a new target. This isn't rocket science (pun intended). Launch drones with small, high-performance engines. Drone has been fed target vector info at launch from the firing vessel. At this point, it's reduced to a problem of "You are at point A. Your target is at point B, heading in vector X. Catch up to it." With a kinetic-kill drone, you wouldn't even need an explosive payload, just ram the drone into your target.

The problem is determine the exact position and heading of the target at the time of firing. Beyond even half a light second of distance, the target could have moved significantly from where your light-speed sensors reported it, as well as changed course. You have to predict where it will be when your shell arrives, not know where it is at that moment.

Unless we develop some massively impressive thrust technology, course corrections are going to have a fairly minor effect over short distances. Objects traveling at speeds of thousands of meters per second do not turn on a dime. That's why I think the torpedo/drone model is the one that makes the most sense. You're very likely to get the drone close to the true position of the target, and at that point the drone can use its own sensors and onboard guidance to make the corrections needed to achieve successful intercept.

The thing is that the more stuff you shove into something the bigger it will be. The stuff will also have to be big enough to carry over long distances. A 5 inch radar is going to pick up stuff from 5,000 miles away, much less half a light second.

[RedKing]

The same as the first. Time and reasourses. It will painful and long to build a computer that would be smart enough to direct ships without going stupid. Live pilots are more reliable to me because they have the ability to look at problem and solve it. Live pilots won't ever break or require maintenance. (On the field of battle that is. Come on, A guys gota lay back and take a break once in a while!) Early ship computers will be not smart enough to guide ships all by themselves and they will cost improble amounts of money. If I was in charge of the military, I would always opt for the mind and ingenuity of Humanity.

Really? A target intercept is purely a mathematical problem. Computers that we have NOW can solve equations on the fly to determine the optimal intercept path to a moving object. I mean, hell....we have torpedoes now that if they lose their initial target, will begin performing manuevers to hunt for a new target. This isn't rocket science (pun intended). Launch drones with small, high-performance engines. Drone has been fed target vector info at launch from the firing vessel. At this point, it's reduced to a problem of "You are at point A. Your target is at point B, heading in vector X. Catch up to it." With a kinetic-kill drone, you wouldn't even need an explosive payload, just ram the drone into your target.

The problem is determine the exact position and heading of the target at the time of firing. Beyond even half a light second of distance, the target could have moved significantly from where your light-speed sensors reported it, as well as changed course. You have to predict where it will be when your shell arrives, not know where it is at that moment.

Unless we develop some massively impressive thrust technology, course corrections are going to have a fairly minor effect over short distances. Objects traveling at speeds of thousands of meters per second do not turn on a dime. That's why I think the torpedo/drone model is the one that makes the most sense. You're very likely to get the drone close to the true position of the target, and at that point the drone can use its own sensors and onboard guidance to make the corrections needed to achieve successful intercept.

The thing is that the more stuff you shove into something the bigger it will be. The stuff will also have to be big enough to carry over long distances. A 5 inch radar is going to pick up stuff from 5,000 miles away, much less half a light second.

Uhhh....

[Johnfalcon99977]

So in your sense, the smaller the ship is the better. I agree with this. But keep in mind that we will not start out with gigantic ships. I reckon they will be quite small, so the distance of half a light second would be dramaticly increased.

I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about. I wasn't talking to you and I didn't say anything about small ships.

You know what? Forget what I just said and lets just go with "I agree with you"

I don't want you to agree with me, most of the things you have said are ridiculous.

I use my common sense. Excuse me if it dosen't exactly go with science.

[forsaken1111]

So in your sense, the smaller the ship is the better. I agree with this. But keep in mind that we will not start out with gigantic ships. I reckon they will be quite small, so the distance of half a light second would be dramaticly increased.

I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about. I wasn't talking to you and I didn't say anything about small ships.

You know what? Forget what I just said and lets just go with "I agree with you"

I don't want you to agree with me, most of the things you have said are ridiculous.

I use my common sense. Excuse me if it dosen't exactly go with science.

That's fine, but common sense doesn't make stuff happen. Science does.

I don't mean to offend, but you just seem to be spouting stuff from movies and video games.

[Johnfalcon99977]

Has anyone else notice that the quotes broke?

[forsaken1111]

Has anyone else notice that the quotes broke?

Yeah you messed them up in yours and I quoted it so it snowballed. Fixed mine.

[RedKing]

Has DARPA done any research on the subject?

Reams of it. And RAND, and NASA, and the Air Force, and probably a dozen or more aerospace manufacturers.

I've looked through a fair amount of the RAND stuff on space weaponization. They're pretty clear in their analyses that kinetic weapons are the bomb (pun intended), although they certainly don't discount directed-energy weapons.

[Johnfalcon99977]

Perhaps we should drop the topic of spacewarfare and move on to other things.

[Blargityblarg]

Like how large an ecosystem of plants it takes per human to support oxygen, since oxygen candles aren't going to be feasible to support any long-distance trip.

[Johnfalcon99977]

Like how large an ecosystem of plants it takes per human to support oxygen, since oxygen candles aren't going to be feasible to support any long-distance trip.

...
...
...
...
...
Next.

[Retro]

It's not the size of the ship, it's how you use it.