Are there any reasons why, once developed, flying battleships wouldn't change warfare forever?

Are there any reasons why, once developed, flying battleships wouldn't change warfare forever? Assuming no inherent structural flaws with the levitation methods, why would a sci fi civilization like the ones often portrayed in media bother with anything else? Different sizes of "matrioshka" flying ships could fulfill any vehicle role, tanks would be obsolete, jets would be obsolete, waterships would be obsolete...

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They don't exist; and unlike many other fictional ideas, there's no physical way they could exist.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >there's no physical way they could exist
      Can you elaborate? Even if one takes that as granted, why no scifi media concerned with "realism" ever bothers to implement them?

      https://i.imgur.com/TZhrm7G.jpg

      HELLOOOOO!!! 😀

      Point defense? Also flying ships can evade in 3D, unlike waterships and tanks.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        HELLOOOOO!!! 😀
        HELLOOOOO!!! 😀
        HELLOOOOO!!! 😀
        HELLOOOOO!!! 😀
        HELLOOOOO!!! 😀

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          what is that?

          flying perhaps
          in the atmosphere? no

          wdym

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            MIRVs anon, that's what ICBMs fire. They come in at like 7 km/s and there's nothing stopping them from detonating at 10 km altitude instead of 0 km in order to hit your ship.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            there isn't much physically stopping you from making a orbital battleship, compared to one that floats/antigravs in the atmosphere

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          that works against every other vehicle too

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Probably because you'd need a level of energy storage and thrust generation that would be basically impossible, or antigrav tech. Keeping something that weighs probably hundreds of thousands of tons aloft against 1G would require so much thrust it hurts my head to think about it. Like a giganewton or more, continuously. The Saturn V was 35 meganewtons on liftoff.

        Just put it in orbit anon. It's feasible in a near-medium future scenario to to have 100,000 tons in orbit of Earth, just refine the shit in the asteroid belt and sling it over. The MCRN Donnager (pic related) was around that weight and it was doing interplanetary shit, albeit with magical moronicly high ISP drives named after someone who didn't kill himself.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Epstein did kill himself in the Expanse universe
          shouldn't have turned off the chinese voice commands

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I mean by negligence, absolutely. But not intentionally. By that logic the guy who decided to slingshot through the ring killed himself too.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/lwG11au.jpg

          Are there any reasons why, once developed, flying battleships wouldn't change warfare forever? Assuming no inherent structural flaws with the levitation methods, why would a sci fi civilization like the ones often portrayed in media bother with anything else? Different sizes of "matrioshka" flying ships could fulfill any vehicle role, tanks would be obsolete, jets would be obsolete, waterships would be obsolete...

          Space-based warfare is going to be pretty different from what we have on Earth. For one thing, flying/orbiting spaceships are really, really easy to find, and to kill.
          There is no stealth in space, and there is no ability to hide -- everything reflects/emits radiation, so finding anything is trivial. (even secret spy sats in Low Earth Orbit can be seen by hobbyists with a pair of binoculars). Everything in space is always moving in predicable ways, and if they do decide to turn on their engines it is quite obvious where the spaceship is headed.

          Killing things in space is also easier than on Earth. Missiles can pull a LOT more g than any manned spacecraft, meaning they can always intercept manned craft. Velocity differences in space can get truly massive (there's no air to slow things down), so a kinetic kill missile can penetrate basically any armor.

          I think a likely outcome is that the US (for a minimum of 10 years-- everyone else is at least 10 years behind SpaceX) will have a near-monopoly on orbital upmass at scale due to Starship. The first-mover advantage will be so massive that I'm not sure anyone else will ever be able to bridge it. The US will be able to put millions of tonnes of stuff in space.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The scale and importance of Starship is still greatly underestimated. I made a rough calculation of Starship upmass using some basic assumptions (1 new rocket [superheavy+starship] is added to the fleet per month. [~500 raptors/year @ 6+33=39 per stack; 500/39 ~12]
            Each rocket can get 150 tonnes to LEO per launch
            Each rocket will fly once per day
            Assuming flights start Jan 1 2024....

            >For comparison to real things:

            After 3 flights, you've launched 450 tonnes, which is more than the 420 tonne ISS [which took more than 40 flights to assemble!]

            After 6 months, you've sent mass up equal to a US supercarrier [100,000 tonnes]

            In about a year, you could launch the of the Momentum Limited Orion Nuclear Pulse ship. This ship was designed in the 1960's to use contemporary tech to get humans to Alpha Centauri quickly by periodically detonating nuclear bombs and using their energy to gradually push the ship to 3% of the speed of light. [400,000 tonnes]

            Before 4 years, you've sent more than the total US Navy tonnage [4,635,628 tonnes]

            >The scale and economies of Starship are so ridiculous that science fiction things can actually happen.

            The Nostromo [bulk carrier from Alien] is ~ 63,000 tonnes, so that could be launched in the first 4 months of Starship operations.

            The USS Enterprise NCC-1701 is 190,000 tonnes, so that could be launched in about 9 months.

            The Donnager [Martian flagship in the Expanse] is ~250,000 tonnes, so that could be launched in about 11 months.
            "

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >This ship was designed in the 1960's to use contemporary tech to get humans to Alpha Centauri quickly
              >quickly
              Wow, only 133 years one way. After multiple generations we've arrived at our destination. An inhospitable wasteland for the malformed space-bred offspring of actual human beings to die on.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                it would be a hell of a trip. 133 years to the outside observer but maybe time dilation makes it seem like 110 years or so to them. A difference of a generation or so.

                Earth born gen takes off from here works knowing they will die in space performing their role as best they can. They would most likely stay very optimistic about the voyage.

                1st space born generation gets raised by parents to do same jobs and keep things onboard together. They probably wouldnt be moronic fragile cripples. Just fragile cripples.

                2nd 3rd and maybe 4th gen space babies would have it the worst. A real test of whether or not you can give someone a purpose and have them accept their predetermined lot in life. The effects of zero-G would be likely highly detrimental with no real way of knowing in advance how the human mind would cope with it all.
                Final gen could give birth planetside to the ones who would have to do all the colony building.

                Everything for 1000 years would be named after the various crew members.

                It sounds like a good sci-fi series could be made exploring this. But if something like this has already been written I dont want to read it cuz its probably trash lol

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                gravity in space is easily solved -- 2 easy ways to accomplish this without needing to constantly use propellant:
                1.) Spin the ship around the longitudinal axis (so the outer walls become the floors),
                2.) A long cable is attached to the nose of the ship with a small counterweight. Because the center of gravity is dependent on distance, you can use a small weight with a long enough cable. When you get to your destination, cut the cable. The major advantage to this method is the floors stay floors, and the center of rotation is quite far away so objects would behave mostly 'normally' (Coriolis effect would be minimized)-- people would be less likely to get motion sickness, etc.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >1.) Spin the ship around the longitudinal axis (so the outer walls become the floors),
                There's only so hard you can RPM a human body long term before it starts to puke.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Gravity isn't "easily solved".
                You only have a fix that work for short travel and require lot of preparation in the design phase. Not everything can be used as a counterweight.
                Obviously if talking of generational ships the real problem is how long you can maintain the technology and what would actually be efficient.
                As long as you are forced to sent human alive, it is not interesting or even ethical).
                (why force a whole generation to poverty so the next ones live comfortably)
                It would actually be more ethical raise the colonists once at destination.

                I can go on the topic there's few reason to send colonizing force to other system (before running out of resource in the first)

                >And there are ways we can solve it: Maybe all off-worlders (or certain people, like pregnant women, babies, etc.) sleep on a train that goes in a loop to generate 1g
                Rotational gravity was tested and was shown to degrade your skeletal structure as the gravity is intertially alligned - not truely alligned to your posture

                >We COULD go to Alpha Centauri with 1960's technology like Project Orion
                If you ignore any possible material failures - I mean making a disk that will take thousands of nukes wont be a problem right? What could possibly go wrong

                >False. We can simulate all the conditions of Earth.
                False - the longer people spen in space the more reliant on unidentifed pre-requisites we become; the "Earth frequency" leading to intense aggression and anxiety being just one example

                [...]
                The gyroscopic effects of spin gravity also inherently throw off target and recorrecting - plus the fact that the spin is not self sustaining as stellar winds mean you will be needing to maintain the rotation - and rotational gravity? try doing the maths on how fast you'd need to spin a 10m tube to generate 0.1g of gravity

                [...]
                If the aircraft could launch off of tiny ships, every plane would have a personal ship to carry it.
                Aircraft CAN launch off tiny ships
                A carrier is the size it is because you need a minimum size for the logistics for re-arming and re-fueling - and once you have the basics you can upsacle it more effiecintly than reproduce it : Thats why Small carriers can upscale by just 20% and gain nearly 50% in airwing
                Supercarriers are designed to be at the point where the economies of scale are peaked

                To be fair centripetal gravity will work fine if you have a long enough tether to make the difference non visible.
                By the time you can build ANY rotating ship/structure, you'd have more than enough infrastructure to sustain operating cost.

                Don't see your point (for anon) about the solar wind because it's negligible even at the size of a Starship and given a sail you can even use it to help.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >(why force a whole generation to poverty so the next ones live comfortably)
                Unironically why whites are the only people capable of interstellar travel

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Agreed

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >And there are ways we can solve it: Maybe all off-worlders (or certain people, like pregnant women, babies, etc.) sleep on a train that goes in a loop to generate 1g
                Rotational gravity was tested and was shown to degrade your skeletal structure as the gravity is intertially alligned - not truely alligned to your posture

                >We COULD go to Alpha Centauri with 1960's technology like Project Orion
                If you ignore any possible material failures - I mean making a disk that will take thousands of nukes wont be a problem right? What could possibly go wrong

                >False. We can simulate all the conditions of Earth.
                False - the longer people spen in space the more reliant on unidentifed pre-requisites we become; the "Earth frequency" leading to intense aggression and anxiety being just one example

                [...]
                The gyroscopic effects of spin gravity also inherently throw off target and recorrecting - plus the fact that the spin is not self sustaining as stellar winds mean you will be needing to maintain the rotation - and rotational gravity? try doing the maths on how fast you'd need to spin a 10m tube to generate 0.1g of gravity

                [...]
                If the aircraft could launch off of tiny ships, every plane would have a personal ship to carry it.
                Aircraft CAN launch off tiny ships
                A carrier is the size it is because you need a minimum size for the logistics for re-arming and re-fueling - and once you have the basics you can upsacle it more effiecintly than reproduce it : Thats why Small carriers can upscale by just 20% and gain nearly 50% in airwing
                Supercarriers are designed to be at the point where the economies of scale are peaked

                >Each rocket can get 150 tonnes to LEO per launch
                >Each rocket will fly once per day
                fanboy spotted.
                Musk also pushed these ridiculous numbers with Falcon9, it's great, but not THAT ridiculous wet dream great.

                Not saying that the ability to launch 150 tons every, let's say per month to be generous, with ships reusable 20~100times, isn't going to make a mockery of every space program before.
                But please keep this bullshit fake advertisement away and focus on reality, guys like you are why smooth talking liars are ruining the world and making dystopic megacorp that make 1984 information control look amateurish.

                Also don't dismiss the little details like space-assembly, just because sweet talker say he'll "brute force them away". We barely have any experience assembling anything in space, it's an incredible pain in the ass and the future will be remote-robots.
                The only reason SpaceX can make manned capsule is because NASA and other space agencies share their research.
                The only reason SpaceX spacesuit are fancier looking is because that kind aren't rated for EVA but emergency depressurization and NASA/others never had a budget for "make it look pretty".

                >1.) Spin the ship around the longitudinal axis (so the outer walls become the floors),
                There's only so hard you can RPM a human body long term before it starts to puke.

                https://i.imgur.com/J89VpII.png

                gravity in space is easily solved -- 2 easy ways to accomplish this without needing to constantly use propellant:
                1.) Spin the ship around the longitudinal axis (so the outer walls become the floors),
                2.) A long cable is attached to the nose of the ship with a small counterweight. Because the center of gravity is dependent on distance, you can use a small weight with a long enough cable. When you get to your destination, cut the cable. The major advantage to this method is the floors stay floors, and the center of rotation is quite far away so objects would behave mostly 'normally' (Coriolis effect would be minimized)-- people would be less likely to get motion sickness, etc.

                According to SpinCalc, 225 meter radius (aka 2 rpm) is the smallest rotation size needed not to be uncomfortable.

                I did the math. I used assumptions: Starship is 1500 tonnes (actual is supposed to be 1300, fully loaded), with a radius of rotation of 225 meters. I used Dyneema cable with a 1.2 safety factor. I used the same diameter (94.8 mm) of the Dyneema cable throughout the tether (in reality, it could be shaped thinner in the middle to save some weight). The optimal counterweight and cable I found to meet this criteria is a 7000 meter cable with a 48 tonne counterweight. Although 48 tonnes is heavy, it could be useful: You could have a 48 tonne probe as your counterweight and when it's time to cut the cable at the end of the flight, you could basically launch your probe at around 1466 m/s delta v, which is pretty fast (about 3200 miles per hour). If you're really clever, you could do some complex gravity assist thing with some interaction between some combination of Phobos, Deimos, and Mars to get lots more energy to send your probe somewhere fast.

                For long duration manned spaceflights on smaller ships (less than 450m diameter) you would use a system like this. For shorter flights (i.e. the Moon, maybe Mars) you'd just deal with low gravity for a few days/weeks. A lot of the bad effects of low gravity are countered by strength training. It's only when astronauts are in zero g for a long time that they get badly affected.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I used Dyneema cable
                My mans, any polymer will fall apart within weeks in space. The energy of chemical bonds is so weak that most polymers break down at ultraviolet-A frequency, much less X-ray shit that flies in space. Also they tend to become brittle and break from very low temperatures. At the most you can take something like maraging steel, but most likely not even that and we'll only use expensive metal alloys that are optimized for survivability, not strength-to-weight ratio.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                (respect the effort to make calculations, though)

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                (respect the effort to make calculations, though)

                https://i.imgur.com/TBZR4TI.png

                [...]
                [...]
                [...]
                [...]

                According to SpinCalc, 225 meter radius (aka 2 rpm) is the smallest rotation size needed not to be uncomfortable.

                I did the math. I used assumptions: Starship is 1500 tonnes (actual is supposed to be 1300, fully loaded), with a radius of rotation of 225 meters. I used Dyneema cable with a 1.2 safety factor. I used the same diameter (94.8 mm) of the Dyneema cable throughout the tether (in reality, it could be shaped thinner in the middle to save some weight). The optimal counterweight and cable I found to meet this criteria is a 7000 meter cable with a 48 tonne counterweight. Although 48 tonnes is heavy, it could be useful: You could have a 48 tonne probe as your counterweight and when it's time to cut the cable at the end of the flight, you could basically launch your probe at around 1466 m/s delta v, which is pretty fast (about 3200 miles per hour). If you're really clever, you could do some complex gravity assist thing with some interaction between some combination of Phobos, Deimos, and Mars to get lots more energy to send your probe somewhere fast.

                For long duration manned spaceflights on smaller ships (less than 450m diameter) you would use a system like this. For shorter flights (i.e. the Moon, maybe Mars) you'd just deal with low gravity for a few days/weeks. A lot of the bad effects of low gravity are countered by strength training. It's only when astronauts are in zero g for a long time that they get badly affected.

                You could easily sheathe the core Dyneema cable with lightweight radiation/temperature insulation and it would almost certainly still be lighter than using steel. For example, Apollo used a few layers of really thin aluminum sheets to reflect heat.

                Another option to reduce the cable weight would be to use an identical starship as our counterweight. Iinstead of the 7km tether and 48 tonne counterweight, just have a 450m cable joining 2 starships.

                >Comparing Steel to Dyneema, for a 450m length of cable with 1500 tonne load and a 1.2 safety factor:
                Dyneema would have a diameter of 94.8mm and weigh 3,096kg.
                Steel would have a diameter of 112.7mm and weight 35,250kg, or roughly 11x as much as Dyneema. Even though the diameter is only a bit bigger for steel, dyneema is so light that its got a massive difference in how much the cable weighs. Dyneema weighs 975 kg/m^3 (which is almost exactly the same as water at 1000 kg/m^3), whereas steel is 7850 kg/m^3.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Imagine dooming someone to live in a tenous metal tube with health complications for their entire miserable life. And oh btw, you have a massively critical job keeping X system running or we all die. Don't go getting bitter, depressed and nihilistic now!

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Imagine dooming someone to live in a tenous metal tube with health complications for their entire miserable life.
                How is that different from how we've treated the working class since time immemorial?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Time dilates with gravity, not in its absence. You'll age faster in space.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Bro, read about special relativity before talking about General relativity. He was absolutely right. The frame of reference that has higher velocity will have the "slower" clock. Thats the basis for the story of the twins/ twin paradoxon (not actually a paradoxon in the scientific sense).

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                My guy, gravity makes time slower. This is not a controversial statement in the slightest.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                is light slower in gravity well?
                if not then why it cannot escape event horizon?
                if it actually slows
                does it mean that external observer actually sees your timeline slowed down due to gravity slowing down light coming from you
                while you died due hours or days ago but light is so slowed down that it did not reach the observer yet?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Time increments digitally, one moment to the next. The "time" between increments of Planck time is what appears to change.
                So, if you were to cross the event horizon, you would (likely) process everything happening to you in real time according to your own perception, but anyone watching you would watch it unfold over the span of many, many years, as if you're in slow motion.
                All of this, of course, with the rather large caveat of, "according to currently known physics."

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Bro, read about special relativity before talking about General relativity. He was absolutely right. The frame of reference that has higher velocity will have the "slower" clock. Thats the basis for the story of the twins/ twin paradoxon (not actually a paradoxon in the scientific sense).

                My guy, gravity makes time slower. This is not a controversial statement in the slightest.

                My guy, gravity makes time slower. This is not a controversial statement in the slightest.

                You are both correct, but you are also both moronic.

                If you moved as far as physically possible from all other mass in the universe, for example into the middle of a galactic void ,you would age faster that people living on Earth, but only while you stayed absolutely still.

                On the other hand, if you move at relativistic speeds, you will age slower than people on Earth.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Thanks for the correction, learnedanon. I keep forgetting that relativistic speeds are considered to be on the table in these sorts of discussions, too.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                There is already something written and it's one of my favorite books - orphans of the sky.
                However taking on a 100+ years trip is not very smart. Imagine 20 years later we invent a ship 2 times faster and after 110 years the morons arrive to discover a colony already going.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Reddit sighted

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Each rocket can get 150 tonnes to LEO per launch
              >Each rocket will fly once per day
              fanboy spotted.
              Musk also pushed these ridiculous numbers with Falcon9, it's great, but not THAT ridiculous wet dream great.

              Not saying that the ability to launch 150 tons every, let's say per month to be generous, with ships reusable 20~100times, isn't going to make a mockery of every space program before.
              But please keep this bullshit fake advertisement away and focus on reality, guys like you are why smooth talking liars are ruining the world and making dystopic megacorp that make 1984 information control look amateurish.

              Also don't dismiss the little details like space-assembly, just because sweet talker say he'll "brute force them away". We barely have any experience assembling anything in space, it's an incredible pain in the ass and the future will be remote-robots.
              The only reason SpaceX can make manned capsule is because NASA and other space agencies share their research.
              The only reason SpaceX spacesuit are fancier looking is because that kind aren't rated for EVA but emergency depressurization and NASA/others never had a budget for "make it look pretty".

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But i am not talking about space warfare, i am talking about flying ships.

            >flying ships can evade in 3D
            how in the flying FRICK are you going to evade anything when you're the size of a skyscraper with handling of a oil tanker?

            Not all flying ships would be huge, most should be the size of gunboats at most.

            >Assuming no inherent structural flaws with the levitation methods
            if you have propulsion that might as well be magic then battleships are largely pointless since there's nothing stopping you from slapping your Magic Engine on a bunch of Really Big Rocks and launch them at enemy's cities

            Yeah but what if you need to capture a place?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >but what if you need to capture a place?
              capture what? there's nothing to capture because your physics-defying engines means everybody who can produce them can turn anything into an absurdly powerful kinetic weapon that can't really be defended against. it's MAD except with no radiation.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I don't see how conventional point defense systems would be particularly ineffective against this kind of magic technology. And we can also talk about point defense systems enhanced by this technology.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Different anon,
                >I don't see how conventional point defense systems would be particularly ineffective against this kind of magic technology.
                Assuming the "anti-gravity" type of technology...
                You are allowing someone to move in space million of tons of projectiles, of any transportable size.
                Then you drop/deorbit those.
                They can have any size and overwhelm any missiles based defense.
                They'll hit with the force of nuke and if they rely at 100% on kinetic energy it mean that anything meant to intercept them need to be equally massive to truly deflect them.
                If it's not massive/speedy enough you won't deflect them or will just spread the explosion in multiple bit.

                >And we can also talk about point defense systems enhanced by this technology.
                Go on because the topic as described is only about making gargantuan mass float as you want.

                The only way to counter such orbital bombardment would be to prevent the ammunition from being put into orbit, so it's not point defense.
                Trying to intercept them "midway" is impossible unless you already know the target and float forever at the best launching point
                And again, the cost of interception will be vastly higher than the cost of the projectile.

                The only way to defend against this is to never live on a planet but in mobile colonies where the same magic technology can be use to hopefully evade "dumb" projectile.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Throw big rock at .99c
                >By the time you see rock, rock hit
                tl;dr

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Not all flying ships would be huge, most should be the size of gunboats at most.

              You mean like... airplanes and helicopters? Dumbass.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          this
          space is so fricking cringe
          >gravity
          >radiation
          >lightspeed impossible
          >everything is so fricking far apart
          >our bodies slowly unraveling when not exposed to earth-like conditions

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/FuFbzQs.png

            The scale and importance of Starship is still greatly underestimated. I made a rough calculation of Starship upmass using some basic assumptions (1 new rocket [superheavy+starship] is added to the fleet per month. [~500 raptors/year @ 6+33=39 per stack; 500/39 ~12]
            Each rocket can get 150 tonnes to LEO per launch
            Each rocket will fly once per day
            Assuming flights start Jan 1 2024....

            >For comparison to real things:

            After 3 flights, you've launched 450 tonnes, which is more than the 420 tonne ISS [which took more than 40 flights to assemble!]

            After 6 months, you've sent mass up equal to a US supercarrier [100,000 tonnes]

            In about a year, you could launch the of the Momentum Limited Orion Nuclear Pulse ship. This ship was designed in the 1960's to use contemporary tech to get humans to Alpha Centauri quickly by periodically detonating nuclear bombs and using their energy to gradually push the ship to 3% of the speed of light. [400,000 tonnes]

            Before 4 years, you've sent more than the total US Navy tonnage [4,635,628 tonnes]

            >The scale and economies of Starship are so ridiculous that science fiction things can actually happen.

            The Nostromo [bulk carrier from Alien] is ~ 63,000 tonnes, so that could be launched in the first 4 months of Starship operations.

            The USS Enterprise NCC-1701 is 190,000 tonnes, so that could be launched in about 9 months.

            The Donnager [Martian flagship in the Expanse] is ~250,000 tonnes, so that could be launched in about 11 months.
            "

            >Gravity
            NASA is moronic and has never done any real testing of partial gravity on humans. We know 0g is not great for humans, and we know 1g is fine for humans, but we don't know about .38g on Mars or .17g on the Moon. It will probably be fine. And there are ways we can solve it: Maybe all off-worlders (or certain people, like pregnant women, babies, etc.) sleep on a train that goes in a loop to generate 1g.

            >Radiation
            Not a problem. In transit, there will be a radiation-hardened shelter to hide in during solar flares. Once on Mars, people will probably live in houses with thick roofs initially, and eventually will have bubbles of air to block the radiation. In a few decades, interplanetary ships themselves could be built thick enough that no sheltering is needed.

            >lightspeed impossible
            True. Even with 'slow' space ships, humans can still settle enormous numbers of systems.

            >things are far apart
            About every 2 years, Mars is only 80-150 days away, which is not that different from the Mayflower (took 66 days). Admittedly, going to Alpha Centauri takes a while, but we probably won't send humans there until our technology is better. We COULD go to Alpha Centauri with 1960's technology like Project Orion, (whose mass we could get to orbit in ~1 year of Starship being operational). A nearer-term way to 'get' to nearby stars is the Breakthrough Starshot, which uses large earth-based lasers to accelerate a swarm of 1000 tiny space ships (smartwatch/phone sized) to Alpha Centauri at 15-20% of light speed. They'd get there in 20-30 years, then 4 years later their pictures would arrive back at Earth.

            >our bodies slowly unraveling when not exposed to earth-like conditions
            False. We can simulate all the conditions of Earth.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >And there are ways we can solve it: Maybe all off-worlders (or certain people, like pregnant women, babies, etc.) sleep on a train that goes in a loop to generate 1g
              Rotational gravity was tested and was shown to degrade your skeletal structure as the gravity is intertially alligned - not truely alligned to your posture

              >We COULD go to Alpha Centauri with 1960's technology like Project Orion
              If you ignore any possible material failures - I mean making a disk that will take thousands of nukes wont be a problem right? What could possibly go wrong

              >False. We can simulate all the conditions of Earth.
              False - the longer people spen in space the more reliant on unidentifed pre-requisites we become; the "Earth frequency" leading to intense aggression and anxiety being just one example

              https://i.imgur.com/J89VpII.png

              gravity in space is easily solved -- 2 easy ways to accomplish this without needing to constantly use propellant:
              1.) Spin the ship around the longitudinal axis (so the outer walls become the floors),
              2.) A long cable is attached to the nose of the ship with a small counterweight. Because the center of gravity is dependent on distance, you can use a small weight with a long enough cable. When you get to your destination, cut the cable. The major advantage to this method is the floors stay floors, and the center of rotation is quite far away so objects would behave mostly 'normally' (Coriolis effect would be minimized)-- people would be less likely to get motion sickness, etc.

              The gyroscopic effects of spin gravity also inherently throw off target and recorrecting - plus the fact that the spin is not self sustaining as stellar winds mean you will be needing to maintain the rotation - and rotational gravity? try doing the maths on how fast you'd need to spin a 10m tube to generate 0.1g of gravity

              >Tiny unmanned drone self destructs and blows up engines
              Nice battleship you got there.

              The only reason why battleships work in science FICTION is that the magical technology of "shields" exist in those stories.
              In the future, it'll be lots of ships that carry long range missiles/railguns. Tying up your assets in a single gigantic object is just asking for it to get drone striked.

              >muh aircraft carriers
              Only exist to bring the missiles closer to their target. If the aircraft could launch off of tiny ships, every plane would have a personal ship to carry it.

              If the aircraft could launch off of tiny ships, every plane would have a personal ship to carry it.
              Aircraft CAN launch off tiny ships
              A carrier is the size it is because you need a minimum size for the logistics for re-arming and re-fueling - and once you have the basics you can upsacle it more effiecintly than reproduce it : Thats why Small carriers can upscale by just 20% and gain nearly 50% in airwing
              Supercarriers are designed to be at the point where the economies of scale are peaked

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What about this instead of the train but without the tilt because no gravity to counter

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I don't think that anon quite understands how rotational gravity works, or he's just simplifying it for the discussion. You need a spinning structure with a very large diameter so that the difference in "gravity" from your toes to your head is small. When I say large I mean at least several hundred meters in diameter. A disc of 400 meters diameter would give you 1g at a reasonable comfort level. If you go smaller you start getting issues with being in a rotational reference frame where as you get closer to the center of the structure gravity lessens, gravity doesn't seem to work right in general as the structure is actually rotating underneath you instead of pulling you to it (so dropping a ball means it goes like pic related which is super fricking weird), your ears can get fricked up and you'll get dizzy, etc.

                You can never fix this but with really large diameter structures you can reduce it to the point people don't really notice it.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                forgot pic

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You could maybe deal with this issue by having the rest of the space ship near the center of rotation, and just having people do couple of hours per day in the "gravity pod" that is further away from the axis.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's not really an issue anon, if you can get away with it you keep people inside the spinny bit 24/7.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                okay i didn't consider the difference based on how far from the center you are, should have been obvious to anyone who ever was on those spinny playground things as a child. but assuming you just enter the rotator to sleep and maybe watch some netflix for two hours prior, all laying down... what kind of difference would that make regarding the necessary radius & how useful/ for how long would it be useful to counter negative effects of long term 0g exposure? I assume the second question is pretty much impossible to answer without real life studies

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The issue with 0g is that your bones and muscles don't need to support your weight and thus atrophy. You need positive vertical g-force, not horizontal, to avoid that.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >but assuming you just enter the rotator to sleep and maybe watch some netflix for two hours prior, all laying down.
                The thing is that you need to be standing up for the gravity to do its thing. We simulate the effects of low gravity here on earth by keeping people laying down on hospital beds.

                One of the biggest problems for zero g is that gravity is not pulling all your blood to your feet anymore, and your heart doesn't have to pump against that pull, so fluid starts just pooling around your body.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                think starship its 50 meter tall
                - spin it in this dimension and you have at least (as mass is not centered but closer to engines) 25 meters of height to offset those ill effects
                - gforce at 25 meter mark will be similar to one on 23 meter mark and difference will not be noticeable at human height - simply floors closer to center of spin will get lower gforce
                minus is that it would be difficult to point your solar power pointing where you want but that is easier to engineer solution to that than "artificial gravity" without the spin

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Nah, it just turns into John Carter and chads from 1g planets mog twinks from low g planets until people from Gmaxxxxing planets show up and kill everyone.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                lmao in the expanse there's a scene where a really strong earther (by earth standards, like a bodybuilder) gets cornered and mugged by a bunch of belters and he basically murders all of them brutally without any hesitation or trouble

                space born incels GET OUT

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Actually anon, have you ever read any books by Ian Douglas? His books can be a bit.... self masturbatory and tend to focus on basically space Marines, but there's a fair amount of space combat which I like. The most basic design for a ship in his later books is like a giant mushroom, with the cap being armored but also filled with water to serve both as reaction mass, supplies, a shield against interstellar radiation, and an additional layer of ablative armor. Most ships fight using missiles and a spinally mounted weapon firing through the center of the cap

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >epstein drive
          wow, >1,000,000 isp is absolutely insane. That's like 1000x the theoretical performance of VASIMIR; the only theoretical propulsion system that even comes close is the quantized inertia/EM schizodrive bullshit. I think you can reasonably ignore the possibility of hundred-kiloton ships ever going interplanetary, at which point they're really just space stations. The mass ratio you would need with even something like an Orion drive (assuming the theoretical ~10k Isp is correct) for an optimal LEO-to-LMO hohman transfer without aerobraking would then require multiple times the mass of every nuclear arsenal ever produced by all of the countries on earth combined. For one round trip. Gravity wells suck.

          >Each rocket can get 150 tonnes to LEO per launch
          >Each rocket will fly once per day
          fanboy spotted.
          Musk also pushed these ridiculous numbers with Falcon9, it's great, but not THAT ridiculous wet dream great.

          Not saying that the ability to launch 150 tons every, let's say per month to be generous, with ships reusable 20~100times, isn't going to make a mockery of every space program before.
          But please keep this bullshit fake advertisement away and focus on reality, guys like you are why smooth talking liars are ruining the world and making dystopic megacorp that make 1984 information control look amateurish.

          Also don't dismiss the little details like space-assembly, just because sweet talker say he'll "brute force them away". We barely have any experience assembling anything in space, it's an incredible pain in the ass and the future will be remote-robots.
          The only reason SpaceX can make manned capsule is because NASA and other space agencies share their research.
          The only reason SpaceX spacesuit are fancier looking is because that kind aren't rated for EVA but emergency depressurization and NASA/others never had a budget for "make it look pretty".

          NTA but the main barriers to falcon 9 hitting the originally projected numbers are a) kerosene causing engine coking requiring refurb between flights; b) downrange recovery ops being limited by number of autonomous barges and tug boats/crews/dock logistics; and c) lack of demand at the current $/kg ratio. SpaceX has a very obvious history of learning from mistakes and adapting to them whenever possible, in stark contrast to modern NASA/MIC aerospace contractors. Starship directly fixes two of the three issues by removing engine coking and always being RTLS, and between LNG being several times cheaper than RP-1 and the reduction of reuse cost by eliminating a) and b), the price per kilo should sink enough to actually drive demand for more space development which would then enable more launches. I definitely agree that they aren't going to *actually* hit their aspirational goals, but they could get close. Falcon 9 really only cut the cost to space roughly in half, if starship can even do 20% of what is promised then it'll further cut the price at least 10x or more.

          Gravity isn't "easily solved".
          You only have a fix that work for short travel and require lot of preparation in the design phase. Not everything can be used as a counterweight.
          Obviously if talking of generational ships the real problem is how long you can maintain the technology and what would actually be efficient.
          As long as you are forced to sent human alive, it is not interesting or even ethical).
          (why force a whole generation to poverty so the next ones live comfortably)
          It would actually be more ethical raise the colonists once at destination.

          I can go on the topic there's few reason to send colonizing force to other system (before running out of resource in the first)

          [...]
          To be fair centripetal gravity will work fine if you have a long enough tether to make the difference non visible.
          By the time you can build ANY rotating ship/structure, you'd have more than enough infrastructure to sustain operating cost.

          Don't see your point (for anon) about the solar wind because it's negligible even at the size of a Starship and given a sail you can even use it to help.

          https://i.imgur.com/TBZR4TI.png

          [...]
          [...]
          [...]
          [...]

          According to SpinCalc, 225 meter radius (aka 2 rpm) is the smallest rotation size needed not to be uncomfortable.

          I did the math. I used assumptions: Starship is 1500 tonnes (actual is supposed to be 1300, fully loaded), with a radius of rotation of 225 meters. I used Dyneema cable with a 1.2 safety factor. I used the same diameter (94.8 mm) of the Dyneema cable throughout the tether (in reality, it could be shaped thinner in the middle to save some weight). The optimal counterweight and cable I found to meet this criteria is a 7000 meter cable with a 48 tonne counterweight. Although 48 tonnes is heavy, it could be useful: You could have a 48 tonne probe as your counterweight and when it's time to cut the cable at the end of the flight, you could basically launch your probe at around 1466 m/s delta v, which is pretty fast (about 3200 miles per hour). If you're really clever, you could do some complex gravity assist thing with some interaction between some combination of Phobos, Deimos, and Mars to get lots more energy to send your probe somewhere fast.

          For long duration manned spaceflights on smaller ships (less than 450m diameter) you would use a system like this. For shorter flights (i.e. the Moon, maybe Mars) you'd just deal with low gravity for a few days/weeks. A lot of the bad effects of low gravity are countered by strength training. It's only when astronauts are in zero g for a long time that they get badly affected.

          >I used Dyneema cable
          My mans, any polymer will fall apart within weeks in space. The energy of chemical bonds is so weak that most polymers break down at ultraviolet-A frequency, much less X-ray shit that flies in space. Also they tend to become brittle and break from very low temperatures. At the most you can take something like maraging steel, but most likely not even that and we'll only use expensive metal alloys that are optimized for survivability, not strength-to-weight ratio.

          [...]
          [...]
          You could easily sheathe the core Dyneema cable with lightweight radiation/temperature insulation and it would almost certainly still be lighter than using steel. For example, Apollo used a few layers of really thin aluminum sheets to reflect heat.

          Another option to reduce the cable weight would be to use an identical starship as our counterweight. Iinstead of the 7km tether and 48 tonne counterweight, just have a 450m cable joining 2 starships.

          >Comparing Steel to Dyneema, for a 450m length of cable with 1500 tonne load and a 1.2 safety factor:
          Dyneema would have a diameter of 94.8mm and weigh 3,096kg.
          Steel would have a diameter of 112.7mm and weight 35,250kg, or roughly 11x as much as Dyneema. Even though the diameter is only a bit bigger for steel, dyneema is so light that its got a massive difference in how much the cable weighs. Dyneema weighs 975 kg/m^3 (which is almost exactly the same as water at 1000 kg/m^3), whereas steel is 7850 kg/m^3.

          and yet again, /k/ is better at discussing realistic spaceflight theory than PrepHole
          that one furry really fricking ruined /sfg/

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Falcon 9 really only cut the cost to space roughly in half, if starship can even do 20% of what is promised then it'll further cut the price at least 10x or more.
            Beware, that's still where "fanboy" come from.
            Falcon 9 cut cost only by half (and they overcharge the military).
            Also worth addressing F9 does launch 10time more often (Starlink being its own market)
            Yet Starship is hoped to "get close" or even 20% of aspirational goals as crazy as 1 flight per day?
            It is nowhere in the same range, it's biased as hell.

            Can't wait for this post-truth era to end.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The original goal of Falcon 9 was 1k$/kg to LEO; currently it's 2,000$/kg. I have no idea where I got "cut roughly in half" because that's totally wrong, the cost to LEO pre-F9 was closer to 5x what it is now (assuming you ignore the russian Proton rocket, which should absolutely be ignored because it's an unreliable piece of shit with an abysmal 10% failure rate - the usual in russia - that no company or government would ever use if given literally any other choice even excluding current political circumstances. Seriously, Proton might actually be the single worst rocket in history to ever reach orbit). So SpaceX has already lowered the price to space by 80% and there's no reason to expect that Starship can't reduce that remaining price by another 80% or better, assuming that reuse works. The tower catch and upper stage reentry are the only big question marks left, but if they succeed then the price to space comes down to basically whatever LNG and LOx cost.
              >they overcharge the military
              The military had it coming for decades by putting up with the insane amounts of overcharging boing/lockmart and later ULA were getting away with, especially after allowing ULA a de-facto monopoly and even denying SpaceX any development contract money in the earlier phases of Falcon development.
              SpaceX has no competitors for NatSec launch outside of Vulcan, which is more expensive at any given c3. The minimum price for Vulcan with no GEM-63XLs is $110 million, and that gets you only 10 metric tons to LEO vs Falcon 9 doing 18.5 tons for $60m. A Vulcan VC6 config with 6x GEM-63XLs can put 6.5 tons into direct GEO insertion (a very demanding launch profile compared to GTO) for $200 million, and Falcon Heavy can loft AT LEAST 6.7 tons to direct GEO insertion at a price of only $90 million, less than half a VC6 for 104% of the performance. Why in the everloving frick would SpaceX cut their military prices significantly below their only competitor? They're not a charity.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Every analyst know the military willingly allow SpaceX to overcharge them so an US company can gut competitors (soft power and co, we are talking of the country who tailored their justice system to apply oversea and take control of competing companies). It win-win for the US because even overcharged it's still cheaper than conventional rocket.
                Meanwhile SpaceX intentionally lower their prices below operating cost to starve competitors because they know they make a profit on the (mostly) secret military side.

                Anyway, the point was not to argue SpaceX didn't revolutionize the market.
                I AM rooting for Starship (megalomaniac name tho) to humiliate every other space agency so hard they design cope-powered Triple-E container spaceship.
                But I won't make this up as a factual inevitability.

                Even a 80% reduction cost is realistic compared to the bullshit shills regurgitate with fleet of manned-rated starship flying every day. Not even talking of "Mars colony" (I almost hope Musk is lying to encourage backing for a single manned mission in his lifetime for his ego).
                The point is to not act like a brainwashed shills for obviously ridiculous goals backed by faith and no I don't consider deflated price F9 success to be a backing, before SpaceX existed I knew we didn't try cheap reusable rockets because no one had either political will nor an economically sane market (even Starlink is risky).
                Truth have value, encouraging people to disconnect their brains just because they like what they hear is the source of most of the world's problems.

                TL;DR
                Some SpaceX shills are fricking annoying, it's like hearing Apple-user claim their phone cure cancer.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I really doubt F9 is being sold at a loss; the turnaround time for booster reflight is too short for any major hull refurbishments and merlins are so cheap that even replacing every single engine after only 5 flights still wouldn't guarantee the reflight cost is over 60 million. Especially when you look at something like a Falcon Heavy being only ~$90M (though I wouldn't be surprised if THAT was at-cost or even loss) for basically 3 first stage flights, one expendable even, and a stretched upper stage, the argument that a regular F9 would somehow cost $70M+ is unreasonable. The main cost they incur now is in the new 2nd stage for each flight but the upper stages aren't multi tens of millions; the widely agreed estimate is only 10 to 15 million at the most for an upper stage. Now SpaceX probably isn't making insane profits off of the commercial launches either, but they're certainly selling them for at least a few million above net zero.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >wow, >1,000,000 isp is absolutely insane.
            Yeah anon, I dunno if you've seen the series (do, the first 3-4 seasons at least) but the scene where the Epstein drive is introduced shows it as a completely accidental modification to a regular drive by some random dude that ends up killing him through sustained over-G (like, laying on the ground regular earth direction G, not fighter pilot head to toe type G) because it's so fricking powerful. So it's not just the specific impulse, it's the power of it too.

            Later episodes show people who basically strap oversized engines to tiny ships to have competitions over who can slingshot around planets the fastest, specialized hyper fast competition ships are shown (one older character is nearly killed by one burning at IIRC like 80% thrust), and even regular military escort craft are shown as capable of killing their occupants at max burn (the chase scene where they turn off the safety, can't spoil it).

            Also they're not even doing hohman transfers in the show. They're doing the other type, I forget the name, but it's normally done IRL by high ISP low thrust engines I'm pretty sure, you point the engine at the target, max burn for a long period, then turn around half way and max burn in the opposite direction to slow down. You know, the most optimal transfer if you have practically unlimited fuel and burn time.

            They're doing it with basically 500 F-1s at once. The show doesn't even pretend to be realistic, the Epstein drive is never actually explained in it IIRC.

            >Martian Navy is lead by Chinese women and black lesbians
            >Martian Marines are lead by Pacific islander women
            >Earth Navy is lead by Black/Brown men
            >All white men from earth are evil
            >Any non-poc man with a role is incompetent or cross-dressed in his past.
            >Only good actors are David Strathrain, Thomas Jane, and Cas Anvar
            >All get killed off...

            God the expanse is so gay.

            >evil
            Are you talking shit about Amos?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Also I really liked the chase scene personally because even though the show already established that these engines are super powerful, it was the first time that they properly showed that they were so powerful that, even with all the anti-G juice shown, the ships had to drastically limit available thrust to avoid killing their occupants. It was pulling 18G near the end and the thing it was chasing showed no sign of stopping.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Martian Navy is lead by Chinese women and black lesbians
          >Martian Marines are lead by Pacific islander women
          >Earth Navy is lead by Black/Brown men
          >All white men from earth are evil
          >Any non-poc man with a role is incompetent or cross-dressed in his past.
          >Only good actors are David Strathrain, Thomas Jane, and Cas Anvar
          >All get killed off...

          God the expanse is so gay.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Bruh you don't even need to go the asteroid belt Mars is literally made of iron

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >lmao, just go to Mars
            It would require significantly more delta-v, you are moronic

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah but you can make rocket fuel out of the fricking dirt on mars and just go up and down as much as you want

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                In the show Mars has a united planetary government that is solely dedicated to the goal of terraforming mars. They put a ridiculous amount of effort into their shipping and military, most of it in space, because they want to hold their own against Earth and obtain resources from the asteroid belts/outer planets (colonized by belters, who are not friendly). In this case yeah the Donnager and all other MCRN ships can be made fairly simply from Martian resources, but anything less than that and mining the asteroid belts is probably more sustainable.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You can do the same with asteroids. There is no reason to go into a gravity well (and then bring the shit up again) when you can do the mining in space.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Frickin' belter

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >flying ships can evade in 3D
        how in the flying FRICK are you going to evade anything when you're the size of a skyscraper with handling of a oil tanker?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Can you elaborate? Even if one takes that as granted, why no scifi media concerned with "realism" ever bothers to implement them?
        Barring some actual anti gravity technology, they would obliterate everything under them where ever they went 24/7 like the space ships landing in Avatar 2 with the amount of thrust it would take to keep it airborn.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >

        They don't exist; and unlike many other fictional ideas, there's no physical way they could exist.


        's no physical way they could exist
        >Can you elaborate? Even if one takes that as granted, why no scifi media concerned with "realism" ever bothers to implement them?

        you have watched too many sci fi movies/games and seem to be taking it for granted that something like anti gravity is even possible in the real world.

        That said, even if we had a battleship capable of flying in the atmosphere, why would anyone do it? It would be a far superior position to keep it in orbit so it can bombard anything on the surface without worrying about getting shot back

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Power projection

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Also flying ships can evade in 3D
        its actually alot harder to dodge in orbit, course adjustments take alot of time and energy and can easily be predicted with simple math

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Also flying ships can evade in 3D
        So can the missile?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Evade this you fricking casual

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >what if X existed? What would the consequences be?
      >But X doesn’t exist.
      >But what if it did? What would happen?
      >Nothing. Nothing would happen because X doesn’t exist.
      >But what if it did?
      >I don’t understand the question. It doesn’t exist.

      The inability to engage in hypotheticals is an indicator of a sub-90 IQ

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        OP said "once developed", suggesting he believes that there is a future for flying battleships. There is not.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >but I ate breakfast

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The inability to engage in hypotheticals is an indicator of a sub-90 IQ

        The hypothetical has too many ramifications to even discuss - as it assumes either a (near) perpetual thrust based engine/ fuel source capble of keeping it up, or that we have developed scalable gravity manipulation

        Either of these have huge ramifications on all other aspects of technology that mean comparing them to today is irrelevant

        How would structural materials develop if we could use gravity manipulation to create hyper dense alloy that are dozens or hundreds of times stronger than what we have today?
        If you have the infinate fuel engines option, why would you not be using the same tech for putting near infinity launches into space?

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    HELLOOOOO!!! 😀

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Oh so that’s why no one has things like armies, tanks, helicopters, jets, and fleets of ships

      moron

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It is a giant ship/military installation in low orbit. That is a legitimate application of an ICBM you neanderthal.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Please tell me how you hide a massive warship in orbit.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    flying perhaps
    in the atmosphere? no

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think The Avengers movie showed a big problem with this concept.
    As soon as something happens to the engines then you're not just dead in the water but you're falling out of the sky.
    It doesn't really make a lot of sense to me even if it were feasible in the not-too-distant future given current technological development which I don't think it is.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >I think The Avengers movie showe-
      For fricks sake anon.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Well tell me where it's wrong.
        >Nothing could ever go wrong with the engines
        Is your issue just that I referenced a movie in the point I'm making?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          the fact that you used such an uncultured trash movie as a reference and not the vastly superior Sky Captain

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That movie fueled my love for the P-40.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            that movie was so bad, i love it.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What about making flying ships that can also float in the water?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        that ship would explode the moment it reaches the water at any sort of high speed, and that without counting the chunkified crew

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/Dc3cllr.png

        I think The Avengers movie showed a big problem with this concept.
        As soon as something happens to the engines then you're not just dead in the water but you're falling out of the sky.
        It doesn't really make a lot of sense to me even if it were feasible in the not-too-distant future given current technological development which I don't think it is.

        I was curious so I ran the numbers. Using the assumption that the carrier is literally just the USS George HW Bush, CVN-77, which is 1092 feet long and weighs 102,000 lbs, I figured out that you'd need around 1774 of the most powerful jet engine in the world, the GE9X, which can produce 115,000 lbf and is 13 feet across. You can fit these in 21 rows 84 engines long.

        Alternatively, you could use Raptor 3's, which produce 539,000 lbf in a diameter of 10 ft. You would only need 3.5 rows of 109 engines apiece to get the carrier airborne.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I bet you did not consider the fuel requirements and the weight of the engines.

          The engines maybe can lift up the ship but for how long? The longer it stays in the air means more fuel required, which adds weight, which adds more engines. Does not scale very well

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > That runway that goes straight into the propeller
      If you frick up your landing you are going to be shredded and take the carrier with you
      I guess they did it to make it look more "traditional"

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They won’t look cool like the ones in media. With that kind of tech there will be a doctrine change in all design that we can’t account for right now.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    When the Wright Bros were tinkering with flying contraptions there were legions of people who said it cant be done. Yes there were gliders and balloons, birds and bugs and whatnot, but a self propelled flying machine? Preposterous! DaVinci himself couldn't do it!
    Men who loved the fantastical idea of flying, men who were interested in engineering and technology went to their grave in 1902 knowing man to be Earthbound. The laws of physics couldn't be tricked. If you could theoretically counter gravitation, well good luck finding something that can store and harness the huge energy required! Kites or any other curiosity were just that, a curiosity.

    Supercooled magnets and quantum locking probably wont evolve into hovering battlecruisers, but something like it may. Those sewn together wingsuits or crazy planes with 13 sets of wings weren't the right avenue to the skies but something like it was. In the year 2124 a space battleship may still look like a hopeless endeavor. Likewise in 12124. But we don't know what we don't know. And therein lies the hope for really cool spaceships with plasma lances and virus bombs.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Excited for the virus bombs, huh? Any plans for those?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        recreational uses

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >In the year 2124 a space battleship may still look like a hopeless endeavor.
      >Likewise in 12124
      Anon from year 95233, it's pretty obvious that a stellar engine can fill the purpose of "battleship" of old.
      The sheer size and redundancy make them able to tank anything but massive volley of billions of physical projectiles
      It is technically manned with billions of digitalized human aboard.
      Given it's sheer mass it will move slowly compared to other target.

      Of course it is pointless to build one since we solve all problem by hacking source code of the universe and creating alt universes where each side in conflict can have what they want

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    By the time anyone is capable of something that size the concept of warfare would be entirely changed anyway. Here, have a dumb video about what would actually be physically possible at that scale.

    ?si=GmHt4eeb_k9bxiDe

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Assuming no inherent structural flaws with the levitation methods
    if you have propulsion that might as well be magic then battleships are largely pointless since there's nothing stopping you from slapping your Magic Engine on a bunch of Really Big Rocks and launch them at enemy's cities

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Assuming
    You are assuming the impossible is possible.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    For a fraction of the cost of your fancy battle ship your enemy can launch a salvo of ground based missiles from multiple directions. That's to say nothing of fighter aircraft. Why would a battleship in the air be any less vulnerable than one on the sea?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because it can fly anywhere and support smaller aircraft from advantageous positions regardless of the sea and other limiting factors that uniquely affect seaships.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That doesn't make it less vulnerable to incoming fire. Unless it has some shielding in addition to the sci-fi propulsion system

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Tiny unmanned drone self destructs and blows up engines
    Nice battleship you got there.

    The only reason why battleships work in science FICTION is that the magical technology of "shields" exist in those stories.
    In the future, it'll be lots of ships that carry long range missiles/railguns. Tying up your assets in a single gigantic object is just asking for it to get drone striked.

    >muh aircraft carriers
    Only exist to bring the missiles closer to their target. If the aircraft could launch off of tiny ships, every plane would have a personal ship to carry it.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      that still works

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >over three miles long

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's because when the drive system fails, it's fricking catastrophic. Hard gammas all around. And there is a double digit percentage greater than zero it might fail, or used to be
    >If you know, you know

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This. Avatar 2 actually made the mistake of making the humans bring their ships into the planet, since the whole point of their design is to keep people as far away from the reactors as possible. In atmosphere, those anti-matter reactors are literally vomiting the deadliest forms of radiation you can think off everywhere

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I think sterilizing the ground couple of kilometers around the landing zone was the idea.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        How the frick is that truss being so skinny not a massive design flaw in regard to random space debris? Even the tiny stuff is potentially a huge problem.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I don't think its that thin, but here is a closer picture

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >How the frick is that truss being so skinny not a massive design flaw in regard to random space debris? Even the tiny stuff is potentially a huge problem.
          Oh anon, the thin truss is a FEATURE.
          This ship is meant for interplanetary travel where the majority of debris will impact from the front.
          The thin truss exist to reduce mass and put lot of distance between the thruster and the cabin, without heavy shielding.

          The guy who work with Cameron, Charles Pellegrino is known for his Valkyrie concept used in Avatar
          The truss should realistically be much longer
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Valkyrie

          Not saying it is "realistic" to have such easy access to antimatter and not have plenty of better way to take over Pandora.
          But it's a change from just having FTL or ignoring it with utterly generic soft-SF spaceship

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Antigrav isn't real but atomic rockets could hypothetically keep a giant airplane in the sky for days at a time (if not weeks) while vomiting actinides in a wide and unpredictable swathe in the case of a serious malfunction
    The technology may already exist. Darpa and the like have been working on nuclear rockets for some time

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Are there any reasons why, once developed, flying battleships wouldn't change warfare forever?
    I mean I don't think anyone has every said being able to levitate large objects wouldn't...
    >Assuming no inherent structural flaws with the levitation methods, why would a sci fi civilization like the ones often portrayed in media bother with anything else?
    A battleship is huge and defense does not always scale up well. Lets say we are dealing with 2 ships, one is 10x the size of the other and of course carries 10x the weapons... but the armor. The big ship needs 10x as much armor to cover it but only needs to be pierced in one spot. So you now have 10 small ships but each one is as well armored as your one big ship. Most of the big Sci Fi series explain that discrepancy with shields which are omnidirectional and function as a health bar. I feel in real life you would be dealing with lots of smaller ships, not big battleships.
    >Different sizes of "matrioshka" flying ships could fulfill any vehicle role, tanks would be obsolete, jets would be obsolete, waterships would be obsolete...
    This is true. Star Trek probably had it right for the most part, everything power wise is ship based combat and only troops usually fulfill occupational roles or special operations stuff. If they have a ship and you don't, you are screwed. DS9 mentioned bigger ground battles and had one episode where the crew took part in them but I think that was mostly for the war aesthetic.
    Star Wars tries to get around this with absurdly powerful planetary shields that can sometimes let in ground troops but not ships which is a bit wired. I get how Coruscant could have a powerful shield... but Hoth? That thing could deflect the 19km long Executer???
    Halo funny enough is like 90% ship combat, everything gets glassed. The battles that take place in the games are the rare exceptions where the Covenant need the Forerunner stuff down there so they don't just burn it.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They don't exist; and unlike many other fictional ideas, there's no physical way they could exist.

      They could absolutely exist, they just need to be made in space. IMO EVE and halo are the best types of ships. However a real combat spaceship would be a ball.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous
      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I'm not saying they can't exists, I am saying without magic-like shields even those big 10+km long Titans in those pictures could be cracked in half by a 20 megaton nuke launched by one of the tinier ships in your pic so it makes allocating that much resources extremely impractical compared so ships in the 100m size category.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          how would tiny ships in the 100m range be able to sustain space operations?
          a blue-navy today at least needs like 5k tons frigates to operate for 6 months at sea.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >a blue-navy today at least needs
            And that would matter if space was a literal ocean you had to propeller through.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              wrong, just think logistics

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Okay, the logistics of spending 50 years and an amount of resources greater than every navy ship ever built in history to build one of your Titans only for it to be cracked in half when a single nuke gets through vs the logistics of needing to have some replenishment ships in your fleet.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Maybe, maybe not.

          > However a real combat spaceship would be a ball.
          Not necessarily. Firepower is roughly a function of surface area and a sphere minimizes surface area, minimizing mounting positions for weapons.

          >Firepower is roughly a function of surface area and a sphere minimizes surface area

          Yes but that is perfect for armor, plus it depends what kind of weaponry you are using.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous
      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        > However a real combat spaceship would be a ball.
        Not necessarily. Firepower is roughly a function of surface area and a sphere minimizes surface area, minimizing mounting positions for weapons.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine an fpv drone in space with an RPG-7 warhead taking out a ship like this in the year 2217.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Biggest problem is energy demand. Without a cheat like aerofoils or something to rest on like seawater you have to spend energy every second that ship stays in the air. If you do have that kind of power then you could just as easily make a seagoing vessel of even greater firepower.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Are there any reasons why, once developed, PHYSIC BREAKING TECHNOLOGY wouldn't change warfare forever?
    Anon,
    If you are making a mockery of physics there's no point having a discussion.
    Of course it's going to redefine everything.

    >typical soft-SF levitation
    Forget having "ship", just a hauler capable of easily putting megatons of kinetic projectile allow you to have thousand of loitering projectile with the kinetic energy of a nuke without the radiation.
    You literally cannot have ground unit anymore, it would be so cheap to put projectile in orbit (even with the cost of accelerating it to orbital speed) that nothing would matter.

    >battleship
    Pointless, it is a single point of failure and at interplanetary speed no armor matter. You are better carrying tons of missiles.
    You would need more magical technology like energy shield or more magical propulsion that somehow reduce ship speed when nearby.

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Depends if it comes with Culture or not. The only true weapon.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous
    • 4 weeks ago
      Gaiapolis

      https://i.imgur.com/E3KbFsI.jpg

      >Warlike civilization that was made to basically police Milky Way
      >been doing this the better part of half a million years
      >done in by proto j-pop
      Well, at least the Killing Star had Jackson's We Are The World be the harbinger of our doom.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Are there any reasons why, once developed, flying battleships wouldn't change warfare forever?
    Same reasons regular battleships don't rule the sea. They take lots of resources, and they're vulnerable to missiles.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Battleships do rule the sea, they're just called carriers now

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >flying ships could fulfill any vehicle role, tanks would be obsolete, jets would be obsolete, waterships would be obsolete...

    Another thing to consider is that colonized planets wouldn't have vast road and rail systems like we do, thus aircraft (especially helicopters) would be the primary method of moving anthing around, unless it was a "water world", then boat supplemented by aircraft would be used.

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They would be gigantic,slow and vulnerable wastes of metal.Even the slightest damage would cause them to crash.

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >OP's picrel: how geeks think future warfare will look
    >Picrel: how nerds KNOW future warfare will look

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Every year we get closer and closer to Robocop.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Funny that Robocop takes place in 2043.

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ships in space are fine, but antigravity plane-type battleships won't ever exist. Closest you can get would be vtol-styled hovercraft since being that low adds extra lift to the wings, and allegedly according to that Soviet madlad who researched it, would allow the shipment of cargo with plane-like speed but container ship-level capacity

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Doesn't seem to have much utility to me.
    Much better would be a skip-glide attack fleet that could base anywhere in the world and attack anywhere else in the world in under a day.
    In essence a carrier's job is to bring aircraft close enough to the target that they can sortie. If "close enough" is "on the same planet" then they don't serve much purpose.
    If you want something even faster than combine skipglide drones with the rods-from-god concept, only instead of a tungsten pole it's a constellation of remote control stealth bombers.
    The only carrier for something like that would be a mother ship designed to carry a fleet of these things into orbit around a planet.
    But then again, if we're talking interplanetary or even interstellar distances, it may be better to just launch them out of a giant cannon or accelerate them using a laser.
    Or maybe even just fill the interplanetary transit network with them so there's always a stream of them passing by each planet's orbital neighborhood.

    Though if we go with the situation where the US builds a gigantic terawatt laser relativistic launch system "for scientific purposes only" in orbit, is there really any purpose to building orbital weaponry anymore?

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    without shells useless

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We don't know how antigravity would work realistically anyway, so to assume it works and there are no flaws in this type of technology is the only thing killing the question

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Price.
    Such a ship (one ship) would cost trillions. It could be destroyed with one nuke. Profit? None.
    What will it even protect/conquer in space? Empty vacuum? Asteroids with precious metals? The Moon? Earth surface?
    Who would be the enemy? Peer force or aliens?
    Space physics is a b***h. The only way to protect such an "asset" is if it never ever gets attacked. Or force fields that can stop nukes/antimatter/ whatever. In which case you can go as big as you want and look out for inside saboteurs.

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    how would you support it logistically
    Assuming it needs fuel, ammunition, supplies, etc
    Do you have a fleet of flying supply ships to go along with it
    Why is this reminding me of an anime

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    For something like that to be feasible, mankind would literally need to find some other element that could defy the laws of physics as we know them. And if that happened, at that point all bets would be off, if some kind of gravity manipulating tech was invented then not only locomotion would be changed forever, but weapon systems as well, shit like the Dune shields could probably be invented with gravity inverters and shit like that.
    It's fun to think about but seems completely improbable in our lifetimes. But then again, there are people that were able to see Man conquering the skies, using nuclear weapons and stepping into the moon all within one lifetime, so who knows.

  31. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In the atmosphere it would either be something lighter than air which would be flimsy and a sitting duck or use so much fuel that you better have bombers instead. In space it might be viable but we don't yet have a cheap way to launch heavy stuff into orbit. Maybe when we have space elevators. But then if the elevators are used for military stuff they will be military targets and when one is destroyed it will fall and cause damage across the whole planet so maybe the military won't be allowed to use them.

  32. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >am I right about this assuming *insert bunch of magical thinking*
    Sure, I guess. It's never going to happen though.

  33. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The thing would be visible thousands of miles away. There's not any data for AA radar detection of metal objects the size of an aircraft carrier, but I imagine it would make a 1960s radar look like a cutting edge AESA array.

    As history has taught us, the most effective defense is to not be seen for as long as possible. Airborne battleships are the antithesis of that.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >There's not any data for AA radar detection of metal objects the size of an aircraft carrier, but I imagine it would make a 1960s radar look like a cutting edge AESA array.
      Bro, forget about the radar, you could detect it with a passive sonar half the planet away.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The thing would bounce off FM radio stations, it'd be like the moon being used as a radio repeater.

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Assuming no inherent structural flaws with the levitation methods, why would a sci fi civilization like the ones often portrayed in media bother with anything else?
    The same reason you use a smartphone or a desktop instead of having a supercomputer in your house. Ridiculously expensive, ridiculously power hungry, and not actually better at many of the roles filled by other platforms.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *