Print

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

[Pnx]

I've always wondered where peak efficiency is in terms of rockets, a rocket with a very small payload is less efficient than one with a larger one, but at a certain point they start getting less efficient, but I've never seen the math worked out, or bothered to work it out myself.

On the subject of lasers, I have to say keeping the heat of the laser down would be a complete bitch... Especially for high powered lasers, which they would have to be.

EDIT: Why do I keep getting new pages when I post?

[Virex]

In my settings you don't


Anyway, I thought you guys may be interested in this, especially those of you who are drooling over the prospect of energy shields.


Besides that, while point-defence systems may be able to keep missiles from getting close enough to a ship to harm it, if laser technology is miniaturized enough one could just mount a long-range laser on a missile and use the "explosive" to pump the laser. You don't need the laser to survive anyway, so you can trash much more energy in it then in a normal laser (Why doesn't wikipedia have a page on explosive pumping? Oh well, I guess this will do. Scroll down for a description of the invention). Another alternative is to mount a kinetic weapon on the missile, for example a rail gun or a ram accelerator, though the viability of that depends on how fast point-defence systems will be.

[forsaken1111]

Hehe.. I'm picturing the plasma window used as an actual window. Like in houses.

Hilarity ensues when there is a power outage, and superheated gasses flow out of the fields.

(Yes I know this would never happen. Still amusing to me)

[Johnfalcon99977]

Hehe.. I'm picturing the plasma window used as an actual window. Like in houses.

Hilarity ensues when there is a power outage, and superheated gasses flow out of the fields.

(Yes I know this would never happen. Still amusing to me)

Goes to arugement about cyberwarfare!

[Virex]

On the topic of cyberwarfare, why's everyone assuming that'd be a point in direct ship-to-ship combat? When it comes to cyberwarfare I think of disrupting the opponents ability to operate trough unrest, misdirection and denial of service. One doesn't hack a tank, but instead tries to break the system that handles the ammo and spare part orders, or one tries to pull the suportive infrastructure and industries of the rails. If the enemy can't repair damage tanks, things become a lot easier, no

[forsaken1111]

On the topic of cyberwarfare, why's everyone assuming that'd be a point in direct ship-to-ship combat? When it comes to cyberwarfare I think of disrupting the opponents ability to operate trough unrest, misdirection and denial of service. One doesn't hack a tank, but instead tries to break the system that handles the ammo and spare part orders, or one tries to pull the suportive infrastructure and industries of the rails. If the enemy can't repair damage tanks, things become a lot easier, no

Precisely. I really doubt any sort of 'hacking' will happen in ship-to-ship combat at all. Misdirection? probably. Jamming? Certainly. Haxorz? No, only in movies.

[USEC_OFFICER]

It looks to me that cyberwarfare in the future will be like cyberwarfare today. A bunch of guys, sitting in a room in front of a bunch of computers, looking at and typing up code, trying to access important information on the enemy's side/mess their systems up/protect their side's system. Unless someone invents a cyberpunk-like jack-in device, the future of cyberwar won't change at all. The only real change would be the amount of cyberwarfare that would occur.

Next?

[forsaken1111]

It looks to me that cyberwarfare in the future will be like cyberwarfare today. A bunch of guys, sitting in a room in front of a bunch of computers, looking at and typing up code, trying to access important information on the enemy's side/mess their systems up/protect their side's system. Unless someone invents a cyberpunk-like jack-in device, the future of cyberwar won't change at all. The only real change would be the amount of cyberwarfare that would occur.

Next?

Though I have to admit that the new hacking in the latest shadowrun game is pretty fun. They changed it so the hacker can (and often needs to) come along on runs and access things either wirelessly or via direct connection.

No more decker riding matrix cover from his flat across the city. (Though you can still do that I guess. Less cool.)

[Sir Pseudonymous]

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.

You're not going to have meaningfully changed course within half a second, at least if there's anything alive on board the target, simply because of the obscene forces that would come into play there. You accelerate fast enough in one direction within half a second, everyone on board is now spread in a very thin layer all over the floor or walls.

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.

A drone wouldn't be getting close and then shooting, it would be slamming itself into the target as hard as it could. A quarter ton rocket with some guidance hardware and steering ability, launched at relativistic speeds from a missile boat, even if it just had a solid metal warhead, would tear a damn big hole in anything it hit. Throw in enough plutonium for it to fission under the immense forces of collision, and you have a nuclear explosion inside the targets hull, irradiating/incinerating the crew and wiping out all electronics on board with an EMP (since any hardening would probably be in the hull, to guard against solar radiation and whatnot).

[forsaken1111]

You're not going to have meaningfully changed course within half a second, at least if there's anything alive on board the target, simply because of the obscene forces that would come into play there. You accelerate fast enough in one direction within half a second, everyone on board is now spread in a very thin layer all over the floor or walls.

Your physical projectile isn't going to be moving at light speed. Even over a light second distance, you're facing two second's delay on positioning data and your kinetic projectile is going to take considerably more than a second to traverse the distance.

A drone wouldn't be getting close and then shooting, it would be slamming itself into the target as hard as it could. A quarter ton rocket with some guidance hardware and steering ability, launched at relativistic speeds from a missile boat, even if it just had a solid metal warhead, would tear a damn big hole in anything it hit. Throw in enough plutonium for it to fission under the immense forces of collision, and you have a nuclear explosion inside the targets hull, irradiating/incinerating the crew and wiping out all electronics on board with an EMP (since any hardening would probably be in the hull, to guard against solar radiation and whatnot).

Okay, but that isn't a drone. It's a missile.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

You're not going to have meaningfully changed course within half a second, at least if there's anything alive on board the target, simply because of the obscene forces that would come into play there. You accelerate fast enough in one direction within half a second, everyone on board is now spread in a very thin layer all over the floor or walls.

Your physical projectile isn't going to be moving at light speed. Even over a light second distance, you're facing two second's delay on positioning data and your kinetic projectile is going to take considerably more than a second to traverse the distance.

If the projectile can correct its course mid-flight, then you fire it where you predict the target will be by the time it reaches the target, adjusting for any changes in course as it goes along.

A drone wouldn't be getting close and then shooting, it would be slamming itself into the target as hard as it could. A quarter ton rocket with some guidance hardware and steering ability, launched at relativistic speeds from a missile boat, even if it just had a solid metal warhead, would tear a damn big hole in anything it hit. Throw in enough plutonium for it to fission under the immense forces of collision, and you have a nuclear explosion inside the targets hull, irradiating/incinerating the crew and wiping out all electronics on board with an EMP (since any hardening would probably be in the hull, to guard against solar radiation and whatnot).

Okay, but that isn't a drone. It's a missile.

It's a kamikaze drone.

Also, technically, a "missile" is any projectile. A hurled rock is a "missile," as is an arrow flying from a bow. I'm not sure what the history behind specifically calling guided rockets "missiles," to the exclusion of every other object fitting the original meaning is.

[forsaken1111]

Eh, if you want to be pedantic you can call anything whatever you want. We don't actually have any terms in our language for space weapons.

And yes, you're being pedantic.

We were talking about ballistic kinetic projectiles. For such a projectile to alter its course you'd need to add a guidance system, sensors, and some sort of reaction control thruster assembly. The point of a ballistic kinetic projectile is that it's just a hunk of (insert substance) and is cheap to make and deploy, and totally immune to electronic countermeasures. Adding all of that to it makes it much more expensive, and possibly prone to jamming.

So what is a missile (in the modern sense) if not a drone which seeks to ram the target? I'm fairly sure that if I showed an average person an autonomous vehicle which sought to ram a target and explode, they would call it a missile.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

You know, they've actually developed prototype artillery shells than can adjust their trajectory in flight to compensate for any wind conditions or drag that's making them deviate from the desired course? (I remember seeing a thing about that on one of those "UNGH FUCK YEAH HIGH TECH WEAPONS AND SHIT UNGH" that were popular on discovery and the like before they started just spamming reality shows about fishermen and rednecks driving trucks for god knows what reason.) That's a guided projectile, but is certainly not what in common parlance is referred to as a "missile".

A drone that carried its own guidance software and had no link to the outside world wouldn't be very susceptible to jamming, and if launched at a significant fraction of the speed of light to start with, only making small adjustments en route to its destination, there's not much room for any countermeasures to be deployed in time to matter. By the time its seen, it's already right on target, and launching chaff or something wouldn't change that (or even be outside the hull by the time it impacts). A single rocket taking down a multi-billion dollar vessel? Seems perfectly cheap to me, even if the guidance systems were made by contractors and so ran into the tens of thousands of dollars per shot. If it hits, it hits, and if it hits hard enough to bring down the target, it's more than payed for itself.

[forsaken1111]

You know, they've actually developed prototype artillery shells than can adjust their trajectory in flight to compensate for any wind conditions or drag that's making them deviate from the desired course? (I remember seeing a thing about that on one of those "UNGH FUCK YEAH HIGH TECH WEAPONS AND SHIT UNGH" that were popular on discovery and the like before they started just spamming reality shows about fishermen and rednecks driving trucks for god knows what reason.) That's a guided projectile, but is certainly not what in common parlance is referred to as a "missile".

If you're talking about the ones I am thinking of, they use flanges/fins to guide the shell through the air to correct their course very slightly. You don't have that option in space, all course corrections require active energy expenditure unless you're in a super thick nebulae or something I guess.

A drone that carried its own guidance software and had no link to the outside world wouldn't be very susceptible to jamming, and if launched at a significant fraction of the speed of light to start with, only making small adjustments en route to its destination, there's not much room for any countermeasures to be deployed in time to matter. By the time its seen, it's already right on target, and launching chaff or something wouldn't change that (or even be outside the hull by the time it impacts). A single rocket taking down a multi-billion dollar vessel? Seems perfectly cheap to me, even if the guidance systems were made by contractors and so ran into the tens of thousands of dollars per shot. If it hits, it hits, and if it hits hard enough to bring down the target, it's more than payed for itself.

Missiles carry their own guidance software and sensors and they're susceptible to jamming and countermeasures. Barring magic stealth technology, the target ship would see the drone at the same time the drone saw the target. I have no idea what kind of electronic countermeasures would be available but I'm certain they would attempt to deploy them.

And remember, the faster the 'drone' is traveling the tighter its possible intercept cone is, as it can only alter its trajectory so far from the original course in the time between sighting the target and impact/miss. Once it misses, it is lost for all intents and purposes as I doubt it would carry energy reserves to reverse course, that would take quite a bit of power and time. This is another reason I think it would be more correctly classified as a smart missile, but what we call it doesn't really matter.

[Nivim]

This is amazing, it's the Infinity suggestions forum all over again except less informed, less organized, and relatively tiny. Just a moment, I'll go grab links for you guys.