Designing a Sci-Fi vessel.

Greetings /k/ . I come here with a challenge for the board as a whole.
A lot of folks on other boards complain that this board is essentialy fricked, useless and provides little to no value. While some of that may be true, I'd like to see for myself if this board can provide something of value so...

Lets see if some of you can provide intresting or good ideas for a realistic space vessel designed fully for military use.
Destroyer, cruiser, corvete etc and since its a challenge, let me introduce some key details you'd have to work with.

- No warp drive, sublight stuff etc. Just some sort of engine or way of propelling itself forward.
- Build of the design has to be done from top to bottom like a ''building'', with ship's propulsion generating the gravity on the ship, ''Expanse'' style.

That's pretty much all. Lets see what you guys can propose.
Sketches, drawings etc all appreciated!

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    When it comes to space travel, /k/ was collectively moronic even before the Ukraine War ruined this board.
    Children of a Dead Earth meta has all the answers for realistic near-future tech military spacecraft.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      CoadE is fun (as much as I am too stupid to play it) but my friend used to be in the game's meta autist community and at some point the meta was armored bricks covered in very rapid fire 60mm guns going at hihg speed
      Other than that it's all lasers and drones of course

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Really? No missile spam? I mean, yes there's drones but regular frag heads are cheaper.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Missile spam sucks in CoadE because sufficiently optimized lasers can instadelete them from far away. You can make cannon drones more durable and they aren't even much more expensive IIRC

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I'd eat your friend's designs alive.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I have bought but not gotten around to booting CoaDE as of yet, finishing on a Terra Invicta campaign and a Kenshi run before starting it the first time, but I’ve been told that while it is mostly reliable that there are some assumptions it makes that would influence a difference in design compared to reality. Is this true?

      Regardless, military spaceborne vessels are going to be a few things necessarily: cramped, small, and armored in one area. I’d predict they will almost certainly be shaped like a very short mushroom, heavily armored on one end with a frickton of missiles and the necessary propellant to make maneuvers and also turn to face whatever threats it detects with its “front” armor.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There are two projects which are meant to follow super realistic space combat design. “SAVAGES” and “The Lunar War” are right up your alley.
    But to make a long story short, the sjips from the Expanse are “fine.” Their engines are way too efficient and powerful - meaning they probably are much bigger with propellant - and they lack thermal radiators

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/6BZ8t66.png

      Greetings /k/ . I come here with a challenge for the board as a whole.
      A lot of folks on other boards complain that this board is essentialy fricked, useless and provides little to no value. While some of that may be true, I'd like to see for myself if this board can provide something of value so...

      Lets see if some of you can provide intresting or good ideas for a realistic space vessel designed fully for military use.
      Destroyer, cruiser, corvete etc and since its a challenge, let me introduce some key details you'd have to work with.

      - No warp drive, sublight stuff etc. Just some sort of engine or way of propelling itself forward.
      - Build of the design has to be done from top to bottom like a ''building'', with ship's propulsion generating the gravity on the ship, ''Expanse'' style.

      That's pretty much all. Lets see what you guys can propose.
      Sketches, drawings etc all appreciated!

      Anyways, a space navy probably has some similarities to an Earth one.
      You can have a drone-launching ship which may also function as something of a carrier. It would be the largest in the fleet no
      A “sniper” ship could be the A-10 of interplanetary warships. You take a gigantic magnetic railgun and then build a spaceship around it
      An all-purpose cruiser, destroyer, and corvette could be mixes of both these philosophies. They have some drone-launching ability but also more “dumb” projectiles like railguns or even cannons
      Each ship is cylindrical with ablative armor to deter laser and nuclear weaponry. Yes, nukes are on the table here. Each ship also has frickhuge radiators to cool off their fusion engines, weapons, etc., which are susceptible to damage.

      Space warfare is more akin to submarine hunts, with the occasional CQB for boarding operations. Ships are easily destroyed so the life of a sailor is dangerous. And even with fusion engines, it takes weeks to months to cross the solar system

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        allow me to update your pic

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Needed bigger radiators.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >SLS
          What’s the point of alternate timelines and near future scifi if I have to be reminded of the worst thing about the real world present?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The main gun will be pointed in the same direction as the main drive engine.

      Whether the craft is slowing down to engage, or flying away from an engagement, the gun and main engine thrust would be pointed toward the enemy.

      Not even The Expanse getd this right.

      The cool thing is we can amost make space warships have an almost humanlike appearance with the main engine at the 'feet', and the main gun as a spear or rifle as such.

      The bridge and quarters would have very few people on board (everything AI robotically controlled), and could even fly alongside and detached from the main hull.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Why would you need to slow down to engage? I mean I get the concept, but it seems like most weapons would be equally (or more) effective with a sanic fast relative velocity.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Why would you need to slow down to engage? I mean I get the concept, but it seems like most weapons would be equally (or more) effective with a sanic fast relative velocity.
          Nta,
          That depend of your objective. If you are only here to kill in a single pass, don't slow down. Just drop your munitions and let them use the free kinetic energy.
          But if you need to attack a target not directly facing you, attack for a prolonged time or take over a space station, you'll need to match velocity and it may take as long as it took for you to get going.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/B4TjPqB.jpg

      Gentlemen, I present to you a gunship with 60 2 MT nukes, and 2 railguns firing 346μm x 10cm osmium sabots at 159km/s, with a ROF of ~900RPM. If you need more gun, guns probably won't work in the first place.

      https://i.imgur.com/FKZIh7g.jpg

      The engines of the Expanse are like a dozen or more times more efficient and produce more thrust than even the most advanced IRL fusion engine designs.
      A real life fusion warship probably takes a few days to get up to interplanetary speed then burns for a few weeks before shutting its engines down and coasting. Flip and burn still happens but is much gentler.
      It’s not a showstopper, but it does mean ships probably still require artificial gravity rings for the weeks to months they spend coasting
      Radiators are easy. Just gigantic glowing red things.

      I feel like Children of a Dead Earth handwaves a significant problem that would absolutely cause issues in their setting
      >if your civilization is spread across the solar system
      >and you DON'T have torchships with 100+ kms delta-v
      >than it will take over a month to get from anywhere important to anywhere else important
      >and everyone will be crammed into "realistically small" crew pods AND they will have months to think about how they are quite likely being sent to die
      It all sounds like a recipe for insanity. I could see entire fleets just refusing to shoot eachother because they've had half a year to agonize over the consequences of their engagement

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    One idea I would propose for a futuristic-but-plausible warship would be to use nanotube flywheels for energy storage. You can make carbon nanocomposites, theoretically, have a tensile strenght in the 100+ GPa range. Even if you limited the speed to 70 GPa for the sake of longevity, your super-flywheel would be able to store a dozen megajoules per kilogram, a good 15-20 times the energy density of lithium-ion batteries, with effectively zero leakage. More importantly, you could get some extra use out of them as reaction-control wheels. Have 6 flywheels spinning, two on each axis, in different directions. You can control roll, pitch, and yaw just by transferring energy from one wheel to its opposite, eliminating mass that would be spent on thrusters (and fuel for them).

    If you have those super-strong materials needed (even zylon or carbon fiber might be superior to current batteries), than you could also probably brace magnetic coils to allow some kind of nuclear pulse propulsion, which is easily the most kino way to explore space. The brute force we-could-build-it-right-now way to do this would be to have a bunch of pre-fabricated mini-nukes you detonate behind the ship for your magnetic coils/tungsten plate to push against. The more refined and less expensive option would have a sub-critical sphere ignited by some kind of z-pinch device or maybe a really powerful but brief (sub-nanosecond) laser pulse.

    As for guns, cannons are too slow and lasers are too hot, some kind of particle beam or coilgun is the way to go (mass produced high temp superconductors are a prerequisite for practical space travel anyway).

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I was thinking of lasers for anti-missile coverage but you're right in that the heat just isn't worth it.
      I know nuclear pulse propulsion is awesome but we can consider chemical rockets too. Ti-propellant designs which aren't practical on Earth could be more viable in space and you don't have to worry about anyone getting poisoned by unburnt hydrazine or hydrogen flouride exhausts. There's also monopropellants to consider for maneuvering in combat when you need more lateral kick than you're getting from those reaction control wheels.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        NTRs (not that kind you fricking degenerate homosexual) using Methane as a monopropellant is probably the most practical, methane is fricking everywhere in the solar system and easy to handle. I'm pretty sure Lockheed is going to or already is testing a NTR in orbit, those hundreds of tons of unknown government payloads that've been launched over the past couple years have to be something like that.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You can even use Methane for fuel cells. Not as powerful as Hydrogen but way easier to use.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Here's an idea. Could lasers be used to provide extra thrust to missiles? attach a sail to your missile and you could beam additional thrust to it until it reaches its destination. Would maybe not be so great for ship-to-ship fighting, but bombarding static sites for cheap? Would also mean the missiles could be much faster and maybe harder to detect/dodge.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >As for guns, cannons are too slow and lasers are too hot

      I was thinking of lasers for anti-missile coverage but you're right in that the heat just isn't worth it.
      I know nuclear pulse propulsion is awesome but we can consider chemical rockets too. Ti-propellant designs which aren't practical on Earth could be more viable in space and you don't have to worry about anyone getting poisoned by unburnt hydrazine or hydrogen flouride exhausts. There's also monopropellants to consider for maneuvering in combat when you need more lateral kick than you're getting from those reaction control wheels.

      >I was thinking of lasers for anti-missile coverage but you're right in that the heat just isn't worth it.
      You guys forget how poorly armored your warships will be, how long they need to cruise, and likely dismiss them only because you aim for a spaceship that look like soft-SF battlecruiser.

      Remember: Form Follow Function.
      Lasers are 60% efficient but in space their range is simply incredible and linking more units increase their efficiency non-linearly.
      The only argument you can put against lasers ship/platform is that they would not be needed for every job.
      But if you are looking to kill ship & missiles? There's simply nothing more cost-effective.

      Build lasers massively on the Moon and your enemy will be limited to throwing asteroids at where they think the lasers might be, hoping the asteroids aren't deflected by heating their surface enough to propel them even a bit.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Lets discuss Laser vs Missiles.
        So far, some anons said lasers are a go to weapon, while others said missiles are better. Lets focus on ups and downs of both systems.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >So far, some anons said lasers are a go to weapon, while others said missiles are better. Lets focus on ups and downs of both systems.
          Oh boy...
          It's purely contextual on top of cost-efficiency and you can't answer that without a full setting with future tech assumption.

          Thinking in term of singular-ship with a need for point defense is a mistake.
          You need reasons for lone ships instead of fleets who can help each others, a fleet need a support-fleets and so on. It's a whole thing and you have purpose-built ship.

          A laser is so absurdly cheap to use, there's absolutely no reason you wouldn't have some and ship dedicated to laser.
          A cannon is so kinetically powerful, you may have a reason or two to have one depending of the enemy.
          And missiles only need to cost less than the target they destroy, and to have enough in range meaning you can replace any ship by equivalent missiles bus.

          https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardefense.php#id--Point_Defense--Laser_vs._Missile

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Ok so!
            Missiles and lasers are both in a way cheap and efficent.
            Which means, ships would most likely employ both, where missiles could be launched at the target from far, far distance and lasers would be used when enemy is close enough.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Definitely both. Lasers are good point defense against missiles and missiles are one of the few weapons that can outrange lasers.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Which means, ships would most likely employ both
              IF you have a need for it and "conventional ships" exist.

              Again, future warfare might become a contest between who have missiles spam or automated lasers reaching all the way to the enemy.
              (or an political battle without any kind of bloodshed because the space infrastructure is so fragile there's regulation and safety to prevent anyone from sneezing too hard. but we are getting away from the intent)

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >where missiles could be launched at the target from far, far distance and lasers would be used when enemy is close enough.
              The opposite, Laser have incredible range, they are just more efficient at shorter range.
              Missiles need to have at least enough dV for interception but the further away they are use, the more time it give to destroy them with laser.
              Plus if you have a missile good enough against a ship, the missile need to split in multiple part to have a chance to hit, splitting in multiple part would reduce its range so it would only be done in the final stretch

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Missiles need to have at least enough dV for interception
                seems like you haven't heard of bomb pumped lasers/casaba howtzers/NEFPs.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                If you think those answer what was said you understand nothing, you just use them as buzzword.
                Everything you mentioned still need a missiles to have enough dV for intercept.

                The nuclear-pumped laser was a kinda desperate attempt to have a one pulse missile killer laser at a time you couldn't hope to get any mass in orbit.
                If you want real range and precision you wouldn't use this a thousand kilometer is nothing given the range we are discussing here. At least hundred thousands if not a million kilometer since scaling up is an option.

                The casaba howtzer is just a shaped-bomb applied to nuclear, again the missiles still need the dV to reach the target.
                NEFP, is I guess: Nuclear Explosively Formed Penetrator and also just another type of shaped charge.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Lasers are good secondaries. Pinpoint accurate, no need for ammunition, and impossible to dodge, they're great for bullying smaller ships. However, when you start seeing equivalent mass ships you run into problems. Lasers generate heat and need power and power plants also generate heat. You end up needing massive radiators to deal with the heat and those radiators are vulnerable to damage and are under structural stress when accelerating. Add to this is that there are armors that can defend against lasers. Magnesium Oxide is a common one but if you can afford premium product you can go with synthetic diamonds.

          Missiles are good primary weapons, used for hitting ships your size or heavier. They're big and expensive but they'll do a lot of damage per hit and there's no real limit to how many you can spam. They can be shot down but the shrapnel is going to keep on the same course so the target will still need to dodge. Get a kilogram of mass going 20 km/s and it'll bust through any armor humanity has devised.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You post like a loser.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Mount the laser on a missile.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This is 99% of combat in David Weber's Honorverse, which builds its physics/weapons/ships around recreating age of sail battles at light-minute ranges

            Although the moronic "gravity wedge" drive that gives you like 500G of acceleration would probably just turn war into either
            1. RKKVs accelerated to 99% of light slamming into planets that have maybe minutes to respond at best
            2. nobody ever going to war again for fear of the previously mentioned RKKVs which would make the threat of nuclear war look like a fricking joke

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I've had an idea like that for a while, mounting a bomb pumped x-ray laser onto a missile. Would/could that actually work as a space weapon?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              It's probably the most effective form of missile. Nukes suck in space because there's nothing for them to push against so you don't get the shockwave which is what does most of the damage. Sure you get a load of heat but it's all spread out thanks to inverse square law.
              Mounting it as a bomb pumped laser lets you get way more of the nuke's output onto the target and so cause way more damage.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                this is only true for deep space, which is probably what you're concerned with, but part of why the testing of nuclear weapons in space is banned is because the last time one was tested it disrupted electronics across the Pacific and disabled something like one in three satellites that existed at the time, because of interactions in the van Allen belts and with the atmosphere

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >mounting a bomb pumped x-ray laser onto a missile
              Keep in mind we never got the Excaliber project to work. In fact, due to bad testing we don't even know if the theory is sound.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        people talking about space combat are not thinking very concretely most of the time. deep space, orbital space, translunar space, interstellar space, LEO, all very different environments with different challenges and with different needs.

        I think it would be most useful to imagine the world 20 or even 50 years in the future, when space force has found its feet, there are competing established lunar bases and some mannedars visitation. this is fairly local and our technology is semi predictable and our goals are fairly concrete.

        lasers on the moon or asteroids makes sense because you can effectively dissipate heat, but there are two problems. 1 is the same problem of all costal defense, they are static platforms going against mobile platforms, they can be found and sighted and so on. it's unsolvable but not catastrophic as history shows. the second one is that these objects are in constant and predictable motion and rotation, so they will always have blind spots and inefficiencies, and therefore can only ever be supplemental. there are two additional small problems - sunlight and regolith. even a small disruption to the lunar surface will kick up regolith which will scratch lenses, gum up joints and gears, and dissipate lasers. regolith sucks. sunlight will also result in huge variance in temperature and available solar power. none of this is a hard no but it's all things to consider

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >I think it would be most useful to imagine the world 20 or even 50 years in the future, when space force has found its feet
          Quite the optimist.
          I foresee no large base on the Moon until we have at least an orbital ring around Earth to manage construction-type payload.
          You ain't going to have regular Lunar delivery with a SpaceX Starship + space-only transfer ship + moon-lander, unless maybe, they can make that one moondust propellant.

          >the same problem of all costal defense, they are static platforms going against mobile platforms
          Big mistake to apply naval dynamic to space.
          Unlike "naval coast" the price of being mobile in space is ridiculously high, any spaceship on interplanetary travel are going to be "static" on 100% predictable trajectories known weeks in advance.
          In comparison surface installation would be fairly mobile.

          Few projectiles can be sent that would survive or not be deflected by a laser.
          If we are at the point where you lob projectiles across the solar system hoping to destroy core installation, then moon/asteroid centric defenses would be what you need to counter such attack then fight back.

          >the second one is that these objects are in constant and predictable motion and rotation, so they will always have blind spots and inefficiencies
          Impossible to exploit "blindspot" on a solar system scale, ships are static on that scale and there is no horizon limiting the range of distributed sensors.
          In comparison what happen under the surface? That's your blindspot.
          You want inefficiencies? How about needing to use hundreds of droptank to get ships anywhere "fast" with no-way-back?

          >there are two additional small problems - sunlight and regolith
          Please, we invented fabric cover superscience.
          There's NO WIND to move the regolith in a way that isn't predictable. The lack of atmosphere is exactly why you wouldn't have "smoke cloud" of any persistence/thickness, it pass, then fall.
          You ain't going to manage bombarding entire moon/asteroid

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Well you’re moronic.
            > I foresee no large base on the Moon until we have at least an orbital ring around Earth to manage construction-type payload.
            >orbital ring
            Scifi bullshit from a moron. But to actually address the rest of your post, I never said large. 3 countries have feasible and actionable plans for lunar bases in the next decade or two.
            >unless they can make moondust propellant
            Making propellant on the moon is trivial as far as spaceflight goes
            >across the solar system
            moron. Anyone who talks about war across the solar system is moronic. It will not happen anytime in the next 100 or more likely 300 years. It’s pretty much only useful to talk about local engagements, by the time we are past that our technology and social groupings will be too changed for us now to predict.
            >oh you’re thinking in naval terms
            moron. If you have a facility on the moon and it is found its angles of engagement will be determined and then known forever, nevermind rotation. I wasn’t even discounting them, you fat moron, just noting the limitations.
            >regolith
            It’s incredible reading a know-nothing wave away one of the most challenging parts of lunar construction lol. The lack of atmosphere is part of the problem - it’s easy to perturb regolith, and it will spread a long distance and stay up for a long time. Theoretically one could engage a different portion of the moon to spread regolith over and above the target area, but even travel by rover or landing near the installation would cause problems. And, again, this is not a hard no it’s just a problem to consider.

            Anyway have a nice day you insufferable scifigay

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >I never said large
              >competing established lunar base
              Pick one.
              It's like you believe FOR MANKIND or AD ASTRA is 50y away.
              You are in denial with a soft-SF understanding of the infrastructure and science required to have weapons capable of making "bad CGI wave of regolith".
              20 or 50years won't be enough to have much worth discussing. Maybe two security officers on the scientific ship to the only base. Discussing some jealous country hacking those / sending 4 loitering missiles in orbit you have nothing to intercept.

              >Scifi bullshit
              Less that believing Sx Starship will fly every day and make rocketpunk real.
              No other alternative if you want decent moonbase.
              I wonder if you know that an early orbital ring is more feasible than any early space elevator.

              >social groupings will be too changed for us now to predict.
              Because you think 50years politic and space tech is predictable? Stop your bullshit.
              You are just mad because I dismissed your starting point as not worth discussing, be honest.

              >posturing as a knowing-it-all about regolith from what is clearly just out of context Apollo trivia on the wiki page.
              The lack of atmosphere prevent any lasting smoke, they will spread yes so easily in fact you don't see it a meter away.
              If you are going to be making ANY infrastructure capable of producing space fuel, you'll have more than enough tech to make dust trivial. Not ruling out we invent a magnet to make charged dust self cleaning.

              Using a 50y start:
              "no war" Earth orbit, cause Kessler.
              Land a large truck on the face of the Moon always facing us.
              On it a weak nuclear reactor, capacitors and a laser turret with a cover on top, range: easily 100,000km
              You literally cannot launch without being in its sight. No the sun won't hide you.
              NO SHIP (equal mass/cost) would survive to reach Moon orbit, you could only spam missiles from Earth and you won't have enough to kick enough dust to bloat anything. The goal is direct strike, and overwhelm its recharge speed.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you're a moron putting words in my mouth. indian china and the US all have plans for a lunar base, the US and China are literally in a space race over it. the entire point of the Artemis mission is to establish a lunar base. the reason they're competing is because there is limited polar real estate
                I'm sorry that your mother told you you were a special boy but she lied. I didnt bother reading the rest of your post, anyone who wants to talk about spaceflight but doesn't know even the most basic issues of what NASA is currently doing is not worth talking to.
                >seethes about starship
                >orbital rings
                ah okay you're the PrepHole gay who periodically shits up esefgee, I thought as much
                >muh space fuel tech is hard
                literally is not, wtf? literally one of the only things a lunar base has going for it is the ease of in situ fuel production. getting to the moon reliably, cheaply and frequently is a harder problem than that.
                >muh Kessler

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Artemis mission
                Already backpedaling on your claim?
                We've been promising moonbase for more than +30years and it is just a scientific base to learn how to make anything permanent, pretending it is any more than that with any military need just show you are disingenuous and trying to save face.

                There's definitely no "limited" polar estate, we only chose the polar ragion for scientific objectives, not for industrial one, not because it is the future hub of any space future.
                China will only pretend they want the same place if they think it can trip western bureaucratic development hoping to get a "first base" for propaganda.

                >ah okay you're the PrepHole gay who periodically shits up esefgee, I thought as much
                Look who's putting words in others mouth here. Making it as vague as possible so it stick on a misunderstanding.
                <Maybe you are that low effort guy who keep deflecting and attacking strawman instead of defending his baseless claim. /sarcasm>

                >literally one of the only things a lunar base has going for it is the ease of in situ fuel production.
                Oh you mean the moon fuel experiment we've never tested in-situ, on a moonbase we don't know yet to build, using local mining and refining technique we don't even have plan for, to refuel a lander we won't even consider before we learn to build the rest?

                Again, you have a soft-SF understanding of the logistic.
                Getting to the moon is the EASIEST part, it's basic rocketry except with higher standard of safety.
                You could send 1000tons there, it will never be used before we learn how to assemble/build on the moon using techniques and equipment we still have to develop.

                >muh Kessler
                Thanks for proving to everyone you are that generation of kids who think everything is a conspiracy to keep you from having fun or something.
                If you want to have any real discussion about space force, space debris are on top of the list.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you're a schizo, I literally always was referring to the real moon bases that will really exist, not some fantasy science fiction moon base. this is because I live in and am concerned with the real world. anyway, keep crying about your orbital rings. I'm sure they'll really exist!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >referring to the real moon bases that will really exist
                Your post:

                people talking about space combat are not thinking very concretely most of the time. deep space, orbital space, translunar space, interstellar space, LEO, all very different environments with different challenges and with different needs.

                I think it would be most useful to imagine the world 20 or even 50 years in the future, when space force has found its feet, there are competing established lunar bases and some mannedars visitation. this is fairly local and our technology is semi predictable and our goals are fairly concrete.

                lasers on the moon or asteroids makes sense because you can effectively dissipate heat, but there are two problems. 1 is the same problem of all costal defense, they are static platforms going against mobile platforms, they can be found and sighted and so on. it's unsolvable but not catastrophic as history shows. the second one is that these objects are in constant and predictable motion and rotation, so they will always have blind spots and inefficiencies, and therefore can only ever be supplemental. there are two additional small problems - sunlight and regolith. even a small disruption to the lunar surface will kick up regolith which will scratch lenses, gum up joints and gears, and dissipate lasers. regolith sucks. sunlight will also result in huge variance in temperature and available solar power. none of this is a hard no but it's all things to consider

                >the world 20 or even 50 years in the future
                >when space force has found its feet, there are competing established lunar bases and some mannedars visitation.
                So no you weren't and you are either a liars trying to save face or a troll who will have to pretend he came midway in the quote chain.

                As said the only moonbase planned and feasible in a 20 or generous 50y time fram eare a scientific platform that have no military need, no industrial ambition.
                A space force have no reason to "find its feet" unless you have extensive industrials interest that make valid targets.

                And in that post you also started the other discussion about lasers on moon/asteroids which have no realistic to happen in a 50y time frame even if the goal was solely to deny the Moon to anyone else.

                So either you admit you jumped on largely different time frame and is an hypocrite, or you admit you don't understand what you are talking about and have a childish soft-SF understanding of the topic.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                are you as moronic as you seem?
                I said what I said. I never fricking said they had a military need and yes the space force will have found its feet in 20 or 50 years you fricking sperg, just because you have some weird SciFi idea of what the future of spaceflight must be doesn't mean in conforms to reality. just have a nice day. you're the exact kind of cancer that ruins this type of tread and all threads really

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >ad hominem
                Can't own up to your words anon?
                You are the only one of us not explaining what you mean with your "20-50yrs space force".
                All you did is backpedaling from "competing lunar established bases and manned mars visitation" to Artemis and a what will be a Chinese single-use lander by any realistic prediction.
                Next you'll pretend you never said

                people talking about space combat are not thinking very concretely most of the time. deep space, orbital space, translunar space, interstellar space, LEO, all very different environments with different challenges and with different needs.

                I think it would be most useful to imagine the world 20 or even 50 years in the future, when space force has found its feet, there are competing established lunar bases and some mannedars visitation. this is fairly local and our technology is semi predictable and our goals are fairly concrete.

                lasers on the moon or asteroids makes sense because you can effectively dissipate heat, but there are two problems. 1 is the same problem of all costal defense, they are static platforms going against mobile platforms, they can be found and sighted and so on. it's unsolvable but not catastrophic as history shows. the second one is that these objects are in constant and predictable motion and rotation, so they will always have blind spots and inefficiencies, and therefore can only ever be supplemental. there are two additional small problems - sunlight and regolith. even a small disruption to the lunar surface will kick up regolith which will scratch lenses, gum up joints and gears, and dissipate lasers. regolith sucks. sunlight will also result in huge variance in temperature and available solar power. none of this is a hard no but it's all things to consider

                >lasers on the moon or asteroids makes sense [...]
                Which is what I answered since you quoted me and obviously an era past 50yrs, unless you can't understand that installing lasers on asteroids imply a civilization with actually realistic space launch capabilities like orbital ring.
                After all you are the one using naval analogy like.
                >costal defense
                When talking about space.

                The only mistake I might be doing is presume you are still somewhat honest in your claims and just irritated because you don't get what I'm saying,
                If your next post don't
                >imagine the world 20 or even 50 years in the future
                Then have the last post or don't bother answering.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                not backpedaling, that's what I always meant, enjoy killing yourself you stupid fat autist. orbital rings HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                oh also
                >dust
                >regolith
                >being even remotely the same

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >it’s easy to perturb regolith
              Sure.
              >and it will spread a long distance and stay up for a long time
              How is this possible, though? What's keeping it up against lunar gravity?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Lunar gravity is low enough that disturbed regolith can basically orbit the moon at a low altitude. By falling sideways, with the low gravity and small circumference, it stays up for an annoyingly long time. Still, in total fairness, it’s not an unmanageably long time

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                After a bit of playing with an acceleration calculator, it looks like you need about 50 m/s of vertical velocity for one minute of airtime. That sounds like it would take more than a minor perturbation.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >no large base on the Moon until we have at least an orbital ring around Earth
            kek thanks for outing yourself as a moron in the first paragraph of your post
            >I foresee
            do you foresee my foot up your ass, oh great prophet?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >nano
      stopped reading right there

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    That's some good replies, for /k/.

    As someone into scifi and making their own scifi story, I do think Expanse engines need some tweaking.
    Ship wise the idea for essentialy a drone carrier and a sniper ships are some good examples.

    I myself am tweakin a design centered around essentialy building around a railgun in''halo'' style.

    but!

    ''Their engines are way too efficient and powerful'' is something I'd like to expand upon.
    Why so? How much bigger would they have to be? How would you include thermal radiators?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The engines of the Expanse are like a dozen or more times more efficient and produce more thrust than even the most advanced IRL fusion engine designs.
      A real life fusion warship probably takes a few days to get up to interplanetary speed then burns for a few weeks before shutting its engines down and coasting. Flip and burn still happens but is much gentler.
      It’s not a showstopper, but it does mean ships probably still require artificial gravity rings for the weeks to months they spend coasting
      Radiators are easy. Just gigantic glowing red things.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        For artificial gravity systems on ships, Babylon 5 has some interesting designs. The habitat modules rotate when the ship is in transit and then lock into place when in combat. Maybe having said modules extend and retract to cut down the profile of the ship in combat would be a good idea since you can then fill the extra space between them and the ship with more radiators.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          B5 copied 2010 for that design, though.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          In C.J. Cherryh's Downbelow Station, warships use the heavy rotating hab sections as extra flywheels, to rotate the ship a bit faster. How exactly it works is a bit vague, though.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Why so?
      Basically, the Epstein Drive in the Expanse lets you achieve a delta-v of 5-15% of lightspeed AND do it at high accelerations. In reality, even with a highly optimistic drive, even one that runs on pure hydrogen, you can't really be hyper-efficiency and high-thrust at the same time. If you just use the fusion reactants themselves for thrust, you will have a VERY high exhaust velocity, but you will accelerate very slowly, less than 0.1 gees. If you want to accelerate fast, you add propellant/remass to the reaction, but as your mass flow increases, your velocity decreases in turn. If you add 99 kg of propellant for every 1 kg of fusion fuel, your mass flow increases by factor 100, but your exhaust velocity decreases by a factor of 10. In other words, you've increased your acceleration tenfold, but reduced your efficiency tenfold as well. You could very well design a drive that can "switch gears" and do either of these, although some of the more practical fusion rocket design ideas use the propellant itself as a means to physically crush the fuel and make it fuse, so there would be a minimum amount of propellant needed even in high gear.

      For heat radiators, I recommend checking out curie-point radiators. The "smoke stacks" you see on this ship are actually a decent approximation of what it would look like. You heat up cobalt dust until it loses magnetism, throw it out of the ship, it rapidly radiates heat thanks to its high surface area to mass ratio, and it regains magnetism as it falls below the curie point, allowing the ship to "suck" the dust back in again.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >droplet radiators
        Wouldn’t that be an awful idea for a ship that would be maneuvering all the time during combat?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          ever heard of gravity?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            A ship would need to be several million tons to pull in droplets via gravity.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Not a problem if you use dense materials to build your ship, plus you don't need to worry about artificial gravity. Have your ship be shaped like a small dense sphere, and it re-collecting it's own droplets.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                ever heard of gravity?

                how do you manage to be the biggest moron on this entire board, have you seen the state of it? you need to put your helmet back on asap

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Having a million ton space ship would make things worse. Way, way worse.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You'd lose some coolant but as long as you keep your maneuvers limited it shouldn't be so bad you're out of cobalt dust before the end of battle.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Only if the space combat involves a lot of attitude adjustment like say pointing the spinal particle beam accelerators at the enemy. That being said, I would rather have Curie point or dusty plasma radiators with backup solid ones.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          They collapse for combat. Here's the full pic with all the info.

          I honestly wonder how feasible that would be from a nuclear production standpoint. Even with a developed solar system with a lot of infrastructure, I still feel like that would be expensive as frick to just detonate thousands of nukes per voyage.

          There're other NPP designs that use small fuel pellets(usually deuterium) and magnetic nozzles instead of bombs and pusher plates but they're only theoretical at the moment.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Skewers armor meters deep
            >Microscopically thin beam
            Would that even do damage?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Explosive decompression if you're silly enough to have ships which are pressurized in combat. If not, you're trying to 'snipe' important components like parts of the reactor or engine, fire control systems, computers, sensors, etc.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              The beam creates loads of radiation on contact.
              https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunconvent2.php#id--Particle_Beams--Bremsstrahlung

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >droplet radiators
            Why do these never show up in near future scifi designs? They're super fricking cool pun intended

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Most don't even bother with normal radiators so you cant expect them to know about weird shit like droplet, curie-point, or dusty plasma radiators.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Redpill me on this, that looks cool as frick. Are those "plasma fin" things locked in place somehow?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Which is a shame because radiators can really ad flare to a design.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >electron bombard
            Would shooting this a bunch just build up a massive static charge on your ship?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Alpha, Beta and Gamma radiation are all just spicy electrons.
              A high energy electron beam is a radiation poisoning ray

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Alpha particles is high speed Helium, Beta is electrons, Gamma is a form of light. Beta sounds a lot like Gamma but Gamma is lightspeed while Beta is slower than that and has an electric charge.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Beta can be positrons if it's B+ decay. It's used for PET scans in medical imaging.

                >mounting a bomb pumped x-ray laser onto a missile
                Keep in mind we never got the Excaliber project to work. In fact, due to bad testing we don't even know if the theory is sound.

                I want to believe!

                https://i.imgur.com/bpGgbd2.jpg

                Then they get killed trying to summersault against an AI not trained by overpaid coders, brainwashed into thinking it would work by another AI that post memes on anonymous boa...wait.

                Sir, we don't send search and rescue into Plato's Cave.

                The issue is that AI's pattern recognition is very specific. If you train it on people walking, then it will be really good at detecting people walking but then marines can beat it with a cardboard box, if you train it on faces you can beat it by putting on a mask even a terrible one like a domino mask. It's not an insurmountable problem but it requires a lot of training data and effort to build a broad enough set of parameters to be useful without being so vague that it gets a ton of false positives.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                alpha and gamma are just spicy electrons

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > This board is fricked... useless... provides no value
      > That's some good replies [sic]... for /k/
      > I wanna make RAILGUN SHIPS.... like in HALO!!!
      picrel

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I would argue that railguns would work for targeting strategic assets like space stations, refineries, etc. But for ship-ship combat? Useless as frick.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Why do you think it would be useless? Im curious

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            because missiles, drones and lasers do the job of rails easier in ship to ship combat in hypothetical realistic space combat. Rails would be like a siege weapon in medieval times, useful for throwing a hot block of frick you at something and blowing through. Shoot a rail at something, week later it hits sorta shit. That doesn't work so well in concept for ships moving at b***h ass frick speeds over hundreds of thousands of km ranges. Missiles 'can' work in tracking, lasers are lightspeed to good luck dodging. Rails have to travel, can't track and if it DOES it it would do pretty decent damage, it's just not viable as anything other than something to shoot at nominally static targets, like predictable orbit and such. Keep in mind though, I'm just a guy on the internet so I could be wrong big time.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Realistically they would have relatively predictable orbits though, especially in the envelope where ship to ship combat becomes possible. They might accelerate through it but that hardly makes it impossible to predict

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I do agree they would be predictable if you can notice/catch it in time.
                What would be a way to mask/stealth a missile so ensure it can hit a target?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Appreciate your opinion still as wrong or right, it still offers some neat stuff.
              Thanks Fren.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I will admit the way I made the structure of this thread is shitty and a mess.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Gentlemen, I present to you a gunship with 60 2 MT nukes, and 2 railguns firing 346μm x 10cm osmium sabots at 159km/s, with a ROF of ~900RPM. If you need more gun, guns probably won't work in the first place.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >osmium bullets
      It costs 400,000,000,000$ to fire this weapon... for 12 seconds

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Weapon wise, I was thinking railguns or sort and ''torpedo'' / ''rockets''.
    Quick af, stealthy if possible and with a big enough payload it can easly KO whatever it hits. Fire a swarm of them or catch someone offguard and it should be easy to knock out a target.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Railgun launched missiles are best so that you can correct on your way to the target.
      Explosives are shit cause you already have a few tons of TNT worth of energy from your orbit, assuming you can dump it all on impact

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I mean explosives could have a role in creating clouds of shrapnel.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Putting electronics on railgun rounds is tricky because of the accelerations involved. You're going from 0 to 50 km/s in under 100 meters. There's a good chance even solid rounds shatter before leaving the barrel.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Ok, so if we go by realism, it means Expanse visualised coasting in a good way and established this way of building up speed, coasting and using the engine to loose speed so it can land safely.
    This would also mean a ship can't just stop so easly as any attempt at stopping after getting enough speed, would mean extra weeks spend on getting enough speed.
    And since you mention rolling over would take extra time, I'd like to ask why is that?
    Why would it take longer than in expanse?

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Ok, so manouvers as seen as in expanse wouldn't be possible?
    Or rather they would be if the ship was at low enough speed?

    Also, the radiator idea you offered on the pic is very good with cobalt dust, will have to implement it but I have a question about it.
    Would it be possible for a ship to use a compact form of it? Hidding the radiators for x amount of time within its frame, pulling it out when its going between planets or when its ''safe'' and out of combat?

    Also, gravity wise during the turn-around, a design could just include one or two spinning rings inside the design to offer areas with gravity while the sheep builds up to the proper gravity creation via help of the engine?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Your answer for that is heat sinks and yes, you can store heat in the cobalt up to a limit but once it gets too hot the cobalt dust you're using to keep the system going melts together and clogs up the nozzles and pipes which then stops that radiator from working until you can unclog it.
      Remember that the times when your ship is going to be generating the most heat is going to be in combat and so managing that buildup in your heat sinks and trying to keep your ship's components from melting is almost as important as not getting blown up by a missile.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Ok, so manouvers as seen as in expanse wouldn't be possible?
      >Or rather they would be if the ship was at low enough speed?
      Low ACCELERATION.
      Careful with the terms, I'm doing my best myself.
      A ship with a weak acceleration can still reach high velocity over time. (high efficiency = long range)
      A ship with a fast acceleration may not be able to reach high velocity. (poor efficiency = short range)

      The problem with the Expanse are the following:
      - they would need propellant tank bigger than their dry-mass ship to have the range for constant acceleration
      - the mass of such tank would realistically mean a very weak acceleration (inferior to 1G)
      - the energy needed mean nuclear power plant & huge radiator, curie-point radiators isn't a magical word, you still need to grad and recovers the particles.
      - you can't have stealth in space

      As long as you aren't hoping for any sort of stealth and do pre-cooling you can store energy.
      But...
      >pulling it out when its going between planets or when its ''safe'' and out of combat?
      Space travel take a LONG time and as said by another anon, any use of the main reactor/engines is going to max out any internal sink in no time.
      It may not last long enough to have any point.
      https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/heatrad.php#id--Combat_Heat_Sinks

      Another question is feasable speed at which a ship can move around.
      We established that the flip mounever will take some time but I'm curious about the more intense manouvers.
      With smaller thrusters, how fast could a ship move to avoid combat / ''dodge'' an attack?

      >With smaller thrusters, how fast could a ship move to avoid combat / ''dodge'' an attack?
      You should give up any hope of that outside of a 100% dumb projectiles, and you can't expect your enemy to be dumb just for you.
      Also remember that the most powerful thruster you have is literally your main one. So not dodging laterally or rotating faster than it accelerate.
      At most you can hope for vectoring thrust.
      https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardefense.php#id--Evasive_Maneuvers--Moment_of_Inertia

      Also remember that high acceleration is usually wasteful.
      Pointless to dodge if after that you can't go home.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This just means "high" manouvers are bullshit, rigth? Intresting, turns out space combat would really be two ships essentially throwing shit at each other across 1k+ km.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >This just means "high" manouvers are bullshit, rigth? Intresting, turns out space combat would really be two ships essentially throwing shit at each other across 1k+ km.
          If by "high maneuver" you mean high acceleration maneuver and constantly moving around, kinda yes.
          You are not going to outmaneuver a missile or a projectiles with a ships 100times heavier.

          And how you approach your target will be decided strategically day/week/month in advance. So they don't get a chance to attack you right when you are busy decelerating to get into orbit.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    To make a long story short, Children of a Dead Earth is what you want to copy, but remember that fusion engines don’t exist in that world, so you also want to take some cues from the Expanse

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I think there's a mod for that.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Design wise, I'm essentialy looking for something that's compact as Expanse designs are Fricking Hot visually, even if not realistic.
    That's why I'm constantly tweating stuff to make something thats compact. Maybe some bits can be pulled outwards when its safe, then pulled in or there way ways to make it slim etc.
    The modules idea and cobalt dust I will arleady implement, for sure.
    Drive/Engine wise I'm open for idea. Just need something that's going to work.
    What would you guys think would be the best engines?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Take your pick
      https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/realdesignsfusion.php

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Another question is feasable speed at which a ship can move around.
    We established that the flip mounever will take some time but I'm curious about the more intense manouvers.
    With smaller thrusters, how fast could a ship move to avoid combat / ''dodge'' an attack?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >With smaller thrusters, how fast could a ship move to avoid combat / ''dodge'' an attack?
      That's mostly on how many Gs your crew and ship structure will tolerate

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Since space has no air resistance, it's in your best interest to make a ship that operate at peak efficiency, meaning you'd be better off making a literal cube with boosters on all sides, that relies on the push of inertia.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The most efficient shape is a cone, maximizing your effective armor from a frontal orientation. Cubes are actually not very good

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Definitely not a cube. For one, engines are heavy so you're maximizing weight. For another, you've minimized surface area which means you don't have space for radiators.

      I'd go with a cylindrical shape with gimballed engines at one end and gyros to manage the spin. Radiators are then spread out like wings to maximize cooling. In combat you point the nose at the enemy to hide the engines and minimize profile.

      The most efficient shape is a cone, maximizing your effective armor from a frontal orientation. Cubes are actually not very good

      Also good. Even a cylinder ship should have a pointed nosecone.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Given that space combat will likely take place over huge ranges, over 100km at the absolute bare minimum with railguns, 10000+ km with particle beams and such, it makes sense to upgrade from merely "reactive armor" to "proactive armor" that is slaved to your sensors and prepares itself before being struck. Have lots of individually thin layers of carbon/boron that are stacked together, but with magnetic plates between them that can be energized. A fraction of a second before impact, the plates are energized and repulse eachother, turning from a single thick slab (like a tank) into a whipple shield with dozens of layers, meters of vacuum between them. The incoming strike, which could reasonably hit like a fricking MOAB in pure kinetic energy, hits the top layer and turns into plasma. As it goes through each successive layer, it diffuses itself from a beam into an increasingly wide cone, until the MJ/m^2 is down to survivable levels.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Ok frens. I need to hit the bed but feel free to post some ideas. If the thread won't end up being slided into archives, I will try to reply. If it does end up in archives, I will start a new one.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    NTA but how practical would it be if a combat spacecraft is in waterski configuration? Can it generate artificial gravity through tumbling pigeon method? I think its a neat way to get it without putting vulnerable rings on a warship.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Can it generate artificial gravity through tumbling pigeon method?
      Yes but there's only so many RPM you can subject people to long term before they start to puke and fall over a lot.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Why? Didn't know about the long term risk

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Different anon,
          It's not really the RPM but size the problem.
          In a small rotating habitat you will get nauseous because the slightest chance of direction/height will mess up with your inner ears.
          Using low RPM to avoid this also mean weaker gravity.

          Only way to get 1G without sickness is to go large. 100m large but I don't remember the numbers.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          "... the Coriolis deflection affects the fluid in the inner ear, which can cause disorientation and nausea. Even if the astronaut just turned her head, moving the spiral shape of the inner ear into and out of line with the plane of the ship's rotation, the changing Coriolis force could cause the inner ear fluid to swirl unexpectedly."
          https://van.physics.illinois.edu/ask/listing/31292
          If I have this right, the inner ear fluid you use for balance starts to rotate as well, but if you turn your head now you're now getting the feeling of several RPM in a false direction. Maybe if you could keep still you'd be relatively ok but as soon as you start to move you're going to get randomly dizzy as you look around.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Yes but there's only so many RPM you can subject people to long term before they start to puke and fall over a lot.
        Increase spin radius

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yes but also weight issues.

          it's actually a known number, I have it written down but it's basically 2rpm. you could probably get all the necessary benefits of gravity to vital function at about .3g (marsish) but that's obviously just supposition right now

          >just supposition
          Hopefully. But we have basically no data about long term exposure to g's between 0 and 1. Orbit gives you near 0, more than 1 can be done in a centrifuge, but it's hard to get .3 constantly without actually being on mars or making an actual spinning station or colony.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        it's actually a known number, I have it written down but it's basically 2rpm. you could probably get all the necessary benefits of gravity to vital function at about .3g (marsish) but that's obviously just supposition right now

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    While ships are teh main discussion point of this thread, I feel remiss not mentioning that a great deal of "wet" naval warfare revolves around bases.

    In space, in the solar system, that would mean: Where are they getting water, air, fissionables, and other consumables? Are there automated factories or factory ships to replaces expended munitions? Where are the bases and how do they affect the range of the ships? Are pivotal battles fought over ownership of places like Mars, Titan, Europa, or ice-rich asteriods?

    In the age of sail, it was where potable water and food could be found. In the age of steam, it was where the coal bunkers were. Where in Space are the critical base nodes???

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I concur with

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

      Essential reading material for anyone in this thread:
      https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/
      If you've an interest in the area and have not been exposed to that website before, expect to kiss a few hours of your life goodbye.

      that if you are that much interested in making a consistent setting, you will want to read that website.
      https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/infrastructure.php

      >Where in Space are the critical base nodes???
      We can't really answer that without creating a full setting.

      >Where are they getting water, air, fissionables, and other consumables?
      Water is incredibly common, just electrolyze it for oxygen.
      HUMAN consumables is whatever installation can contain the system for a full biosphere, something you need to solve unless you want to carry everything from Earth forever.
      Energy is going to be rather cheap, Fusion Fuel can be obtained either from gaz giant or from particles accelerator if you have enough solar/thermal infrastructure (lot of loss tho).
      Propellant would likely be water/hydrogen/methane. Basic stuff that can be obtained nearly anywhere as long as you pay for the infrastructure

      >Are there automated factories or factory ships to replaces expended munitions?
      The more intelligent your AI are, the more they will fundamentally change your setting.
      by the way: Factorybot 9874165 found the solution to the conflict, war is over.

      >Where are the bases and how do they affect the range of the ships?
      What you want is a DeltaV map.
      https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacemaps.php#id--30_AU_Radius--Delta-V_Maps
      In short: the heavier the gravity of a object is, the harder it is to get away from it.
      So bad idea going down another gravity well.

      >Are pivotal battles fought over ownership of places like Mars, Titan, Europa, or ice-rich asteriods?
      Fiction lied to you about Mars being interesting for anything.
      Airless moon are the most interesting place, low gravity and you can launch anything from the ground using magnetic ramps. No air friction.
      A tidally locked moon like ours also allow space elevator that reach a Lagrange point, which is an awesome place to put space infrastructure for too many reason to list.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That's a good summary of what the anon said about the topic.
        We wouldn't see those BIG ''cool'' space battles around like mars or in deep, deep space / between planets.
        Instead it does make sense that it would be more of a skirmish for all those small bases. Small fleets trying to ''conquer'' / ''establish'' those outposts so bigger, more resource heavy fleets, could proceed forward.

        And Ai is something to think about indeed as it can automate those weapon systems or those outposts.

        I also think airless moons would be KEY areas to defend.

        Issue is, how would you defend an airless moon?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The elephant in the room is that you need to define a political structure and technological level for "enemies" to make any intelligent answer.
          You don't need to build hyperbattlestar-class ship if the only source of unbridled chaos are safety-conscious striker.

          >And Ai is something to think about indeed as it can automate those weapon systems or those outposts.
          Just to be clear given some anon discussion.
          No future weapon is going to require manual aiming, only one decision from a sentient person.
          But automating production can require very complex real time decision. If you get near sentient-level you are changing radically your setting.

          >Issue is, how would you defend an airless moon?
          Again: Against WHAT?
          Against a nicoll-dyson beams it don't stand much of a chance.
          Against a sentient-AI memetic infowar attack brainwashing its crew there's not much you can do.
          Against an economic attack robbing you of your defense budget for the next million years, gonna be a problem.

          But against a dumb singular space-battlecruiser Yamatoto coming to hit the surface with WWII looking projectile turret? Just point lasers at it as it finish it acceleration and see how long it take until it overheat and melt.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Essential reading material for anyone in this thread:
    https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/
    If you've an interest in the area and have not been exposed to that website before, expect to kiss a few hours of your life goodbye.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Ignoring this thread because right off the fricking bat your initial drawing is utter fantasy moronation. Where are the huge thermal radiators necessary to cool in space?

    So yeah frick you OP.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, it's pretty bad.
      >'realistic', what like the modern day?
      >But also like the Expanse where they can pull 1g for weeks casually.
      >WWII navy ship classes, wtf.
      >No FLT or STL engines just err make it go somehow.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Wait, are they seriously using Epstein drives for every maneuver? No secondary thruster whatsoever?
        >captcha: VAXX

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          IIRC they have cold gas thrusters for landing on planets and docking. The first Epstein drive ship accelerated at 11.5g for 37hrs topping out at nearly 5% the speed of light. For sci-fi that's weak, for realism that's insane. Cutting back to 1g, that's 2.5 weeks of burn.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Be honest: you were likely at the same level before learning the real science from place like this one

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Children of a Dead Earth. This will let you prototype a lot of your ideas and see them fight.

    Don't get too into autistic ship classifications. Your ship has a mission set to include delta v, max acceleration, endurance, payload, cargo, weapons and crew.

    Landing craft, lighters, shuttles etc allow ships to stay in space.

    Remember that > 99.99% of a ship's life is spent outside combat and if they survive combat they might have fuel tanks that are empty and full of holes and empty drone and missile bays. They likely need a support ship to come and rescue/refuel their ship.

    Also drone ships to include combat drones, combat drone carriers, ammo/fuel resupply ships and tenders and sword of Damocles weapon platforms that just wait for decades or longer for somebody to press a red button remotely.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Coming to /k/ to steal ideas for your self publish fan fiction
    Frick off

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Good ideas and usuall /k/ morons did show up but still better than I expected. I will try to collect some ideas into a collage of sort, group up all the useful stuff and will offer a better structure to the next thread, something that has better details to work with.
    And anons who ppinted out "Children of the dead earth" and other franchises, as well as of the links, I thank you. It helped to change my perspective on scifi and ship design.
    /k/ can actually provide good stuff, wow.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >this board is essentialy fricked, useless and provides little to no value
    Slanderous accusations. Behold my creation and apologize.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I will admit, that made me laugh a bit.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I designed this ship a while ago as a thought experiment on how to make the most battleship-ey looking vessel with plausible science only (note, not hard sci-fi as some of the materials and engineering required doesn't exist yet. There just isn't anything physically impossible about it)

    the main engine is an improved Inertial Confinement Fusion-based Orion drive. Its efficiency is vastly improved by using a magnetic nozzle projected behind the ship using superconducting magnets. It can theoretically push the ship around at 1G and doesn't require active cooling. The pusher plate just reaches thermal equilibrium around 4500-5000K.

    The guns meanwhile are coilguns shooting MARAUDER-like field reversed configuration plasma toruses. With some speculative science they can be enriched with Pions, which decay into Muons and can induce Muon-doped fusion in the projectile, effectively making plasma-state timed fusion warheads

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Thats a cool design but how exacly does this avoid the issue of temperature? Im curious

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        in general the issue with spaceships heating up is that their drives produce absolute tons of waste heat and sit inside the craft. This is doubly true when you run your engines with power from your ship's reactors since to achieve any reasonable acceleration you need orders of magnitude more power than to run any other system on your ship.
        As a result the waste heat radiates from the reactor/engine compartment into the hull and heats up the whole thing.
        In my engine the "power stroke" that is the nuclear detonation happens a kilometer or more behind the ship and the momentum of the created plasma is captured by the magnetic nozzle. This configuration might capture, say, 70% of the kinetic energy of the explosion but only less than 1% of its heat, which is only captured by the pusher plate (which in turn radiates it away really quickly due to how hot it is. This gives me a much bigger thrust per unit of heat absorbed

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Guns and everything produce waste heat too so it needs some radiators at least

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            these are taken care of by heat pumps pushing excess heat into the hull (radiance increases with the 4th power of temperature, so it's worth it) as well as curie point dust radiators. You can see their nozzles under the main guns

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Thanks for insight, change my view on some things

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Destroyer, cruiser, corvete
    >realistic
    You are already making the biggest mistake.
    You use Navy naming convention expecting any kind of equivalence in space.
    At best it is abuse of language only refering to size with a entirely different dynamic.

    >with ship's propulsion generating the gravity on the ship, ''Expanse'' style.
    And this is a completely pointless design requirement that would exclude what you need for military use.
    No realistic ship would remain under thrust when it is not needed and you will not need it often, even for a brachistochrone transfer.
    The Expanse = 90% cheats, reactionless engine, missing heat radiator, no propellant tank.

    We might not even have "conventional unit" for space battle, it might be 90% missiles/lasers spam.
    Armor is a lost battle, any mass reduce your range and most systems cannot be armored, even against lasers because if you can only use ablation then their range give them all the time needed.
    If you come up with meta material that reflect laser then you've just made laser more energy-efficient and you can't shield everything forever.
    Not even talking of pulse laser.
    I hope you had a spare main thruster for your time-sensitive deceleration maneuver.

    In orbit you want to use/capture you will want as little debris as possible. Debris can remain in orbit for centuries and grind/destroy any installation you have there into more debris.
    Outside stable orbit, you need missiles or maybe electromagnetic projectile depending of the cost of the target, assuming laser aren't better for police work.

    With this said, there's only a few kind of spacecraft left:
    - Unmanned Modular tugship moving/carrying the other
    - Unmanned Laser platform / combat mirror (sized defined by efficiency)
    - Unmanned Sensor platform / drones
    - Surface/Space transport ships airless & atmosphere
    - Manned command ship (it can't really be disguised)
    - Utilitarian spaceship (mobile refinery to produce propellant, cheap projectiles or other use)

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Navy naming convention for space is fricking kino, and the way it's going to hopefully be.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Based
        No culture that doesnt go back to stuffing "ACKTUALLY" nerds in lockers would ever survive long enough to have a war in space.

        Zap Brannigan UNIRONICALLY beats Westley Crusher

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Comes up with stupid idea
          >"Acktually: That's a stupid idea"
          >Shoves naysayers into locker
          >Idea explodes in their face
          >"Who could have predicted this"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >"erm, um, acktuallee"
            >*His society falls apart and he's used as fertilizer by barbarians*
            Cope and seethe, Poindexter.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Complains about a nerd
              >On a computer developed by a nerd
              >On the internet which was the product of nerds
              >On a forum programmed by nerds
              >Still considers Poindexter an insult.
              Is...Is this bait?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Every second your head isn't being beaten in by a stone celt comes because more than half of the brutish barbarians that picked on you in school are defending you under the umbrella of defending their society as a whole. The threat of massive displays of physical violence perpetrated by larger, better developed males organized in pack structures is the only thing that allows you to keep breathing every time your nasally voice reaches the ears of someone slightly fitter than you.
                You're a pet at best, a slave at worst, in the end you're vermin, you gunless, gunless homosexual.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Another trust fund kid who thinks he's Conan, huh

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Claims to like guns
                >Doesn't like the Nerds that designed the guns.
                >Claims violence is the basis of law
                >Hasn't realize that a 100 pound noodle of a man can kill a 200 pound beefcake with a single trigger pull
                >Hasn't realized what happened to all those warrior societies of antiquity.
                So not a troll but an idiot.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >No realistic ship would remain under thrust when it is not needed and you will not need it often, even for a brachistochrone transfer.
      in theory low thurst high impulse engines like ion engine could accelerate for half of the way and decelerate for the other half - normally you would want your ship in orbit and not gtfo as soon as it drops you

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >please do my design work for me
    kys

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This isn't reddit. At least use the full sentence, thank you.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Regarding lasers and chemical rockets. If we use a design like the Tri-Propellant Rocketdyne engine and its Li,F,H mix we can cycle waste heat in the rocket to melt the Lithium as part of the radiator system and then eject it as part of the reaction mass while the engine is in use. But more importantly an HF chemical pumped laser is also on the table, for this we can use flourine contained as SF6, NF3, or ClF5 and then separated into atomic flourine by either chemical reaction or DC current and then added to either Lithium in the rocket's reaction chamber or Hydrogen in an optical cavity to produce either reaction thrust or continuous laser emissions in the 100 kW range. A chemical laser also has the added benefit of carrying some of the excess heat out of the mechanism via exhaust products.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If it lacks radiators it is a fantasy space boat running on magic. Or going full yolo with evaporative cooling doubling as fuel.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >go to weapons board
    >pose sci-fi question to "prove" usefulness
    How about you just ask about real modern or historical weapons or tactics, you moronic frick?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why would I do that if I can get reactions like yours? Its pure content for me.
      <3

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Ebin bait anon, this'll go perfect in your PrepHole trolling compilation

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    listen lads
    its simple
    if it doesnt LITERALLY look like a boat im not interested.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >is actually used like a sea ship/submarine on several occasions
      >UNCF actually uses the sea as a harbor for their spaceships
      >has torpedo launchers on the bottom to cover its blindspot
      >is 90% engine and guns (including an engine-gun) with all the living space squeezed in between
      >cool hangar design that squeezes in dozens of fighter in a rotating bay around the main engine
      The big joke is that the 2199 Yamato is a better ship design than most soft SF ships.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The big joke is that the 2199 Yamato is a better ship design than most soft SF ships.
        Hard to deny that given the very low average.
        Having turret only on one side is acceptable if you rarely get into a situation where the enemy come from every angle.
        And it does follow the Kziinti lesson.

        Still stupidly silly but at least they did more than the minimum.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Frick anime

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            PrepHole started as an anime board. No anime, no PrepHole.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Two too few. No Japan, no problem.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    A few ideas to run past you guys

    >blackout screens
    basically a giant deployable screen that you deploy in front of your strikegroup. Basic idea is to screen your movements and prevent the enemy from getting a clear sight picture on you. Obvious flaw is it can be shot full of holes, but it adds a vital layer of the survivability onion (cover/concealment) that doesn't really exist in space

    >maneuver whipple shielding

    similar concept to the screen, these are deployable whipple shields (probably shaped like a cone/pyramid) which probably come loaded onto a carrier ship, which then detach and can maneuver by thrusters (or rocket tugboats). Depending on how many you bring- damaged or destroyed units can be swapped out for fresh ones. Main purpose is to absorb high speed kinetic projectiles that aren't economical or possible to intercept. It won't save you if a missile gets through your interceptors, but it might save you from a railgun round.

    Used in combination with the blackout screen it's quite formiddable. The disadvantage is you're limited probably to using missiles (unless you want to shoot through your own blackout screen) but you can basically park missile boats in the middle and spam as many as you want.

    The real question is, what happens when all the missiles/ammunition is spent and both battlegroups are spent? You're both still (presumably) heading towards each other at a high rate of speed- provided you weren't chasing the other guy) Would it be smart to fire everything as soon as you're in range? Or wait until you're closer to have a better chance of getting through their interceptors? Do you leave anything in reserve? Is it worth equipping your ships with stuff to fight in close quarters if you run out of ammo without eliminating the enemy battlegroup?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Adding onto this. A lot of this stuff would be pretty expensive- so not something space russians would have access to likely.

      >EIV (Expendable Intercept Vehicle)

      Basically a big missile with the cheapest, most powerful laser you can strap onto it. No need to worry about radiators (or at least very little). These things can both be used to escort your own missile salvos and to extend the range of your own interception capabilities.

      >IRDV (Intercept Resistant Delivery Vehicle)

      Basically any number of concepts for ways to stop the enemy interceptors from destroying your incoming projectiles. You might palletize missiles- sticking them inside a large armored delivery vehicle that will resist lasers. Of course, this puts you in danger of having the whole thing taken out by a well placed railgun shot- or multiple high powered lasers focusing on one spot. Which is why this is best used in concert with the next weapon.

      >LRCH (Laser Reflective Chaff)

      Basically big frick- off clouds of chaff which make using lasers very difficult (also obscures targeting) Probably the ideal tactic with this is to have a big salvo of missiles filled with this stuff- detonated simultaneously in such a way to create a large cloud of chaff heading towards the enemy fleet formation. Then you immediately fire your own missiles after the chaff cloud, timing your arrival precisely with the arrival of the chaff cloud.

      other things to keep in mind is using lasers to frick with enemy optical/targeting equipment, and electronic warfare (how would space electronic warfare even work?)

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        A few other things to keep in mind

        >Solar Radiation

        Solar radiation is something you're going to have to keep in mind. It doesn't just hurt humans, it fricks with computers a lot. You'll need a lot of redundant computers systems, and a lot of shielding which will take up weight and energy. It's possible you could mitigate this with some sort of advanced magnetic field generation- but that's unlikely.

        >Control Ship vs Individual unit control

        The vast majority of your fleet's actions will be automated. The question is, where do you want all the hardware to be? Stuffing radiation shielding and redundant computers and cooling for it all on your ship is going to really cause the designers a headache. So, what's the solution?

        >CCS (Central Control Ship)

        The beating heart of your fleet. This ship's only job is to take in data from sensors and calculate/coordinate the movement and actions of other ships. However- you will need manual backups. No government is going to sign off on possibly trillions worth of military assets that go limp as a dead fish if one single ship is destroyed.

        So, what's the solution?

        >MCU (Maneuver Control Unit)
        Basically a small ship which can dock and interface with hardpoints on any compatible ship. The ship's engine acts as a maneuver thruster, and once connected- the communication equipment onboard acts to relay commands from the CCS to the ship's various systems. Each MCU is self automated- with redundant systems and radiation shielding, but also contains a human pilot + EVA equipment. If necessary, the pilot can dock to any craft and assume direct control. The MCU is vital for assessing and fixing malfunctions/damage during and after battles.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          One last thing to keep in mind.

          >People

          Having every single ship built with crew quarters is dumb. 99% of this shit is going to be done by computers. Humans only will need access when they need to fix something- and even then, you'll probably want specialty repair drones to do it most of the time. The most important role of humans is going to to be troubleshooting/bugfixing because we can't trust the fleet to be entirely autonomous. You should probably have a single dedicated hab ship with artificial gravity/crew amenities to keep them sane during the long voyage. There's not really any reason to try and make every ship do everything. Especially not with how much more advanced computer tech will be in the future. You're better off with a bunch of highly specialized droneships, under the control of a command ship with humans sitting back and making sure it all runs smoothly.

          One last concept

          >DCLR (Danger Close Last Resort)

          If you're using this thing you're probably already fricked. It's a small ship armed with close quarters weapons only- probably dual feed 40 mm canons that can fire airburst/armor piercing. These ships are only useful in a scenario where both fleets have expended nearly all of their long range weaponry. Assuming they were both heading towards one another- they can either choose at that point burn away and try to disengage, or keep closing and finish things with their DCLR's

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            literally nothing is piloted by humans in spaceflight anymore and that's not even a new development. people simply are not fast enough nor precise enough. there's reasons for some crewed vessels because of light lag communication, especially beyond the moon, but for actual piloting humans will probably never be at the wheel

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >blackout screen
      >aka "I AM HERE" billboard to every telescope in your general direction

      Your problem (and to pretty much all soft scifi authors) is that you are visualizing space combat as something akin to the age of sail with the mighty galleons lined up side by side or ships of the line scraping each other to exchange deadly volleys and eject unfortunate crew members as bearded captains wave cutlasses and do the pirate "aargh" thing + Red Baron vs Blue Max in space if carriers are involved.

      Space combat is destined to be incredibly boring if it ever becomes reality and probably that's exactly why hard sf focuses so little on it outside of planet killing rocks to kick off the actual plot if any.

      In case you are writing a story of some kind, I think placing too much emphasis on the great space battle instead of the reasons for it and its consequences is a big mistake.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The entire point of the blackout screen is to be deployed when you're already in contact with the enemy right before an engagement. They already know where you are

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      My idea for a sci-fi setting is one of an incredibly technophobic humanity making it outside of the solar system through sheer chance. Radios are strictly verboten and computers heavily restricted in their power so conflict is done with wire guided, magnetic, or rudimentarly computer guided gunfire. Yes we could develop more advanced tech but that would make fights boring as it's just missiles being intercepted by other missiles and ships dying randomly to attacks from the other side of the solar system. Much more fun to make it an old fashioned slugfest, both to write and hopefully read. At the end of the day it's fiction and I doubt if and when humanity becomes a spacefaring civilization will they look upon the writings of today and go "golly gee this guy called it", so best to focus on making an entertaining story entertaining instead of engaging in pseudoscientific masturbation

      Directional stuff like the screens and the chaff don't make too much sense because space combat is like a cross between sub warfare and the humble drive-by shooting
      I guess you could make a cloud of shit around yourself but you would just screw up your own targeting

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/EsHIgYK.gif

        As the other anon said, you seem to be making fundamental error.
        ex:
        >You're both still (presumably) heading towards each other at a high rate of speed- provided you weren't chasing the other guy) Would it be smart to fire everything as soon as you're in range?
        Orbital mechanic are essentially ballistic.
        You could be "following closely" a ship and have no chance of ever hitting it.
        Or you could be half an AU away and any projectile dropped now with 0 relative speed would still eventually impact it with full force.

        [...]
        >expensive
        None of what you described is any difficult if we assume warship exist in the first place

        >laser chaff
        >(also obscures targeting)
        You misunderstand how targeting is going to work in such an empty environment.
        There's a saying: "There's no stealth in space" and it include every decoys.
        Chaff? Easily ignored with today's technology, the only decoy that will pass as a ship will be another spaceship equal mass, size, engine, signature.

        >(how would space electronic warfare even work?)
        Arguably limited to virus inserted before launch and hypothetically saturating EVERY enemy sensors ON A SOLAR SYSTEM SCALE because you ain't going to be moving around much. Anything worth destroying will have extremely predictable trajectory hours in advance.

        [...]
        >Solar radiation
        Shielding electronic is easy as hell once you can afford any warship mass, you only want redundancy for faulty maintenance, wears & damage.
        The rest is just modularity and you are above average with talk like these.

        But there's no point making a command ship that get in range, human likely won't be making ANY tactical decision. They'll just be here to set the mission parameters like "this ship protection take priority", "use only 10 missiles for this fight" or "you are allowed to sacrifice this ship"

        [...]
        Human will be payload, but you still want enough modularity to fix ship(s) by scavenging another.

        You're thinking of chaff in a traditional naval context. Chaff in space wouldn't be used to try and trick people's radar signatures, it would be used to create a moving smokescreen which obscures your sight picture and blocks laser weaponry.

        If you know your own trajectory and your enemy's trajectory, it's very simple to fire a set of missiles which will create an expanding cloud of chaff that will block their line of sight.

        They could burn to adjust their course, but that uses valuable fuel they might need later.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      As the other anon said, you seem to be making fundamental error.
      ex:
      >You're both still (presumably) heading towards each other at a high rate of speed- provided you weren't chasing the other guy) Would it be smart to fire everything as soon as you're in range?
      Orbital mechanic are essentially ballistic.
      You could be "following closely" a ship and have no chance of ever hitting it.
      Or you could be half an AU away and any projectile dropped now with 0 relative speed would still eventually impact it with full force.

      Adding onto this. A lot of this stuff would be pretty expensive- so not something space russians would have access to likely.

      >EIV (Expendable Intercept Vehicle)

      Basically a big missile with the cheapest, most powerful laser you can strap onto it. No need to worry about radiators (or at least very little). These things can both be used to escort your own missile salvos and to extend the range of your own interception capabilities.

      >IRDV (Intercept Resistant Delivery Vehicle)

      Basically any number of concepts for ways to stop the enemy interceptors from destroying your incoming projectiles. You might palletize missiles- sticking them inside a large armored delivery vehicle that will resist lasers. Of course, this puts you in danger of having the whole thing taken out by a well placed railgun shot- or multiple high powered lasers focusing on one spot. Which is why this is best used in concert with the next weapon.

      >LRCH (Laser Reflective Chaff)

      Basically big frick- off clouds of chaff which make using lasers very difficult (also obscures targeting) Probably the ideal tactic with this is to have a big salvo of missiles filled with this stuff- detonated simultaneously in such a way to create a large cloud of chaff heading towards the enemy fleet formation. Then you immediately fire your own missiles after the chaff cloud, timing your arrival precisely with the arrival of the chaff cloud.

      other things to keep in mind is using lasers to frick with enemy optical/targeting equipment, and electronic warfare (how would space electronic warfare even work?)

      >expensive
      None of what you described is any difficult if we assume warship exist in the first place

      >laser chaff
      >(also obscures targeting)
      You misunderstand how targeting is going to work in such an empty environment.
      There's a saying: "There's no stealth in space" and it include every decoys.
      Chaff? Easily ignored with today's technology, the only decoy that will pass as a ship will be another spaceship equal mass, size, engine, signature.

      >(how would space electronic warfare even work?)
      Arguably limited to virus inserted before launch and hypothetically saturating EVERY enemy sensors ON A SOLAR SYSTEM SCALE because you ain't going to be moving around much. Anything worth destroying will have extremely predictable trajectory hours in advance.

      A few other things to keep in mind

      >Solar Radiation

      Solar radiation is something you're going to have to keep in mind. It doesn't just hurt humans, it fricks with computers a lot. You'll need a lot of redundant computers systems, and a lot of shielding which will take up weight and energy. It's possible you could mitigate this with some sort of advanced magnetic field generation- but that's unlikely.

      >Control Ship vs Individual unit control

      The vast majority of your fleet's actions will be automated. The question is, where do you want all the hardware to be? Stuffing radiation shielding and redundant computers and cooling for it all on your ship is going to really cause the designers a headache. So, what's the solution?

      >CCS (Central Control Ship)

      The beating heart of your fleet. This ship's only job is to take in data from sensors and calculate/coordinate the movement and actions of other ships. However- you will need manual backups. No government is going to sign off on possibly trillions worth of military assets that go limp as a dead fish if one single ship is destroyed.

      So, what's the solution?

      >MCU (Maneuver Control Unit)
      Basically a small ship which can dock and interface with hardpoints on any compatible ship. The ship's engine acts as a maneuver thruster, and once connected- the communication equipment onboard acts to relay commands from the CCS to the ship's various systems. Each MCU is self automated- with redundant systems and radiation shielding, but also contains a human pilot + EVA equipment. If necessary, the pilot can dock to any craft and assume direct control. The MCU is vital for assessing and fixing malfunctions/damage during and after battles.

      >Solar radiation
      Shielding electronic is easy as hell once you can afford any warship mass, you only want redundancy for faulty maintenance, wears & damage.
      The rest is just modularity and you are above average with talk like these.

      But there's no point making a command ship that get in range, human likely won't be making ANY tactical decision. They'll just be here to set the mission parameters like "this ship protection take priority", "use only 10 missiles for this fight" or "you are allowed to sacrifice this ship"

      One last thing to keep in mind.

      >People

      Having every single ship built with crew quarters is dumb. 99% of this shit is going to be done by computers. Humans only will need access when they need to fix something- and even then, you'll probably want specialty repair drones to do it most of the time. The most important role of humans is going to to be troubleshooting/bugfixing because we can't trust the fleet to be entirely autonomous. You should probably have a single dedicated hab ship with artificial gravity/crew amenities to keep them sane during the long voyage. There's not really any reason to try and make every ship do everything. Especially not with how much more advanced computer tech will be in the future. You're better off with a bunch of highly specialized droneships, under the control of a command ship with humans sitting back and making sure it all runs smoothly.

      One last concept

      >DCLR (Danger Close Last Resort)

      If you're using this thing you're probably already fricked. It's a small ship armed with close quarters weapons only- probably dual feed 40 mm canons that can fire airburst/armor piercing. These ships are only useful in a scenario where both fleets have expended nearly all of their long range weaponry. Assuming they were both heading towards one another- they can either choose at that point burn away and try to disengage, or keep closing and finish things with their DCLR's

      Human will be payload, but you still want enough modularity to fix ship(s) by scavenging another.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Screens of any kind would be even more useful assuming you know exactly the enemy's trajectory. You'll also (presumably) known long in advance his weapon launches and their trajectory so I really don't see how it wouldn't be good to have one. The screen is maneuverable as well because there's no air resistance in space, so you can literally always keep it angled towards the enemy

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >screen of any kind
          If you mean simply remote defense/expandable shield drones that get ahead as ablating shield or remote hardkill PDS, this basic enough to not be worth mentioning.
          Wether or not it is cost efficient to move ablative armor with its own propulsion system is another debate.

          But your idea read as another desperate attempt to get around the NO STEALTH IN SPACE truism bargaining with a shorter "right before combat" timeframe. It still look like "naval battle in space" ignoring orbital mechanic.

          It is no effort to have/deploy sensors at multiple angles, even at a light minute range the delay is too low to make you move a realist ship out of the way, especially doing so on a dV budget. There's not going to be an definite engagement range (as enforced by horizon on Earth).

          You can't really afford a (say) 500m2 screen, 180°, fully opaque, diffusing the heat it receive from your ship so you cannot sense through the screen where it is inside (making the huge screen heavy), moving differently from your ship using equally efficient thrusters unless you bring it all back for big maneuvers, plus sensors to see around your own screen.

          A laser range is such that a screen become ablative armor, or it simply shoot the ship-screen thrusters, its sensors and it become a liability for you.
          A missile-bus will simply slowly adjust its trajectory based on sensor seeing around your screen & punch through it with sub-missiles.

          [...]

          You're thinking of chaff in a traditional naval context. Chaff in space wouldn't be used to try and trick people's radar signatures, it would be used to create a moving smokescreen which obscures your sight picture and blocks laser weaponry.

          If you know your own trajectory and your enemy's trajectory, it's very simple to fire a set of missiles which will create an expanding cloud of chaff that will block their line of sight.

          They could burn to adjust their course, but that uses valuable fuel they might need later.

          You are the one who don't understand chaff don't work in a SPACE context.

          >smokescreen
          Work in atmosphere because the medium is thick and self-distributing by way of fluid mechanic.
          No such thing in a VOID, every particles maintain their velocity unless mechanically/magnetically kept together.
          Meaning you need a screen/ablative armor, see above.

          Also, a missiles isn't going to lose track of you and not remember your trajectory long. Your ship will run out of fuel long before the missile does.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >bargaining with a shorter "right before combat" timeframe.
            Ya, you can sort of have stealth with orbital mechanics if you use celestial bodies as concealment though. Not many such places in CoadE though

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              No you can't.
              We have to assume sensors to be very distributed on multiple orbits and too numerous/far away to destroy, missing better defended backup.

              Even sensors light minute away would give good enough data given that a warship can't afford to waste propellant dodging.
              CoadE is already straining "hard" SF to allow manned warship fleets, the context involve sending all ship on a high-speed one way mission with no way back unless the fuel-ships reach them.

              And it doesn't take into account future AI making our best military planners look like

              https://i.imgur.com/6BZ8t66.png

              Greetings /k/ . I come here with a challenge for the board as a whole.
              A lot of folks on other boards complain that this board is essentialy fricked, useless and provides little to no value. While some of that may be true, I'd like to see for myself if this board can provide something of value so...

              Lets see if some of you can provide intresting or good ideas for a realistic space vessel designed fully for military use.
              Destroyer, cruiser, corvete etc and since its a challenge, let me introduce some key details you'd have to work with.

              - No warp drive, sublight stuff etc. Just some sort of engine or way of propelling itself forward.
              - Build of the design has to be done from top to bottom like a ''building'', with ship's propulsion generating the gravity on the ship, ''Expanse'' style.

              That's pretty much all. Lets see what you guys can propose.
              Sketches, drawings etc all appreciated!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >AI
                AI can't even perform lane assist well.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Actually, you can make AI controlled ships in CoaDE. They just, y'know, suck. Just like IRL AIs are incapable of judging a situation and making complex plans.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Just like IRL AIs
                Hell no. IRL AI are already outskilling human in numerous domain and space is an easier domain than air fighting, all the parameters will be easily quantifiable and decided long in advance.
                CoadE AI suck because it's a single developers indy game. Making interface & AI may not look showy but require top coders.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                AI only performs in heavily controlled environments where no new variables can enter the picture i.e. not reality.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                And are already outskilling human and replacing thousands.
                We are not going get sentient AI anytime soon but you will never have an human take manual control of a Starship, do the flip maneuver and suicide burn.
                By the time space warfare exist, they will have AI taking the decision you dream you were smart enough to take at speed you gave up all hope of reaching.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                humans already don't have manual control of spacecraft, it is all done via computers. they literally just select pre programmed scenarios at most. the forces and precision at play and the speed involved are beyond humans to perform reliably and safely. if I had to guess you will see fully computer piloted craft executing orders given by a nearby human crewed craft of some sort for a while. light lag is simply too great to allow for ground station ordering beyond the moon, though I suppose stations on the moon could do it and extend that horizon. I'm dubious that humans will want to let AI warfighting assets become truly autonomous, making their own assessments of novel situations and deciding whether or not to engage or how. I could however see fully autonomous vehicles be dispatched on specific missions. maybe something like distributed or roaming manned stations accompanied by autonomous vehicles to be dispatched. but attitudes towards autonomous machine thinking could change

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Assuming we don't accidentally make an sentient-AI and the resulting future is weirder than post-singularity novel.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous
              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Then they get killed trying to summersault against an AI not trained by overpaid coders, brainwashed into thinking it would work by another AI that post memes on anonymous boa...wait.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Sir, we don't send search and rescue into Plato's Cave.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You are the one who don't understand chaff don't work in a SPACE context.

            I think you must be autistic or moronic or something. Lack of imagination. Is it really that far fetched to believe military science can't invent systems for dispersing particles in a vacuum/zero g? Water vapor massively effects the efficiency of current laser systems in atmosphere. Water vapor in the vacuum of space first boils, then forms a fine crystal structure. If you were to spray enough of that in a direction at a certain velocity, you will get a slowly dispersing cloud of water crystals. (depending on the angle of the nozzle)

            Considering you know the heading and orbit of any enemy fleets/sensors this will become immensely valuable.

            >Also, a missiles isn't going to lose track of you and not remember your trajectory long

            Also you apparently can't read, because I specified that smokescreens would be used largely to lower the range of laser systems.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >lack of imagination
              This is a thread about making a realistic space vessel designed fully for military use.
              What you said is little different from saying "space-fighter will turn like air-fighter cause someone will make it so for me"
              That level of silly yes.
              Chaff work on Earth because ATMOSPHERE GAS FLUID MECHANIC allow an homogeneous spread and it was never created to fight powerful offensive laser, only distort signal for laser/radar guided missiles.
              In space all you'd be doing is spread what could be a screen/armor so a laser's photons can freely pass in between.

              >Also you apparently can't read, because I specified that smokescreens would be used largely to lower the range of laser systems.
              Or maybe you don't understand how wrong you are?
              You said:

              [...]

              You're thinking of chaff in a traditional naval context. Chaff in space wouldn't be used to try and trick people's radar signatures, it would be used to create a moving smokescreen which obscures your sight picture and blocks laser weaponry.

              If you know your own trajectory and your enemy's trajectory, it's very simple to fire a set of missiles which will create an expanding cloud of chaff that will block their line of sight.

              They could burn to adjust their course, but that uses valuable fuel they might need later.

              >missile
              >expanding cloud of chaff that will block their line of sight
              Even if I pretend it block LOS, a missile have no reason to move around it as it is not a physical obstacle and it don't need to see you to intercept.
              You are neither blocking LOS nor going to lower offensive laser or Lidar sensors range the way you describe.

              >I never said the screen would be physically attached to any ship
              That's not what I was saying, you just don't understand that no screen will give you enough opacity to hide your ships heat signature unless it is quite thick&heavy.
              You grossly underestimate the scales & distance in your plan.

              >Do you think every single satelite/sensor launch won't be tracked?
              By that logic, do you believe your ship army of drones won't be tracked in real time?
              Do you think you will be able to instantly attack every single sensors at the same time no matter how far they are?

              >angles/orbits/trajectories
              About that, I think you missed that if your drones/screen aren't literally right next to your trajectory, orbital dynamic will NOT make it cheap for you to sync.

              Frankly I wish you tried drawing your plan.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >This is a thread about making a realistic space vessel designed fully for military use.

                Yes and you can't imagine a realistic space vessel fully designed for military use

                >What you said is little different from saying "space-fighter will turn like air-fighter cause someone will make it so for me"

                No what I said is that spaceship designers are capable of figuring out how a NOZZLE WORKS

                >Chaff work on Earth because ATMOSPHERE GAS FLUID MECHANIC allow an homogeneous spread and it was never created to fight powerful offensive laser, only distort signal for laser/radar guided missiles.
                In space all you'd be doing is spread what could be a screen/armor so a laser's photons can freely pass in between.

                Do you know what a nozzle is?

                >Even if I pretend it block LOS, a missile have no reason to move around it as it is not a physical obstacle and it don't need to see you to intercept.

                You are still having trouble reading. I never mentioned blocking LOS for a missile. If you read the post, I mention lasers. In earlier posts, I mention railguns, or any other weaponry that cannot maneuver after it has been fired.

                >That's not what I was saying, you just don't understand that no screen will give you enough opacity to hide your ships heat signature unless it is quite thick&heavy.

                Have you never heard of insulation or thermal camoflauge? We literally have thermal camo now. Again, you have an incredible lack of imagination. You can't even conceive of a future where technology has developed at all. Let alone the existing technology we have now, like nozzles and insulation.

                >By that logic, do you believe your ship army of drones won't be tracked in real time?

                If you had learned to read, you would have seen that I assume both sides are being tracked at all times, just not necessarily from every possible angle.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Do you think you will be able to instantly attack every single sensors at the same time no matter how far they are?

                You must be autistic. You are literally unable to see the full picture. Think for half a second about what the "big war" logistics and tactics are going to be. Every launch from every site is going to be monitored with it's orbit known months in advance. How are you even going to get an advanced sensor system sent to a remote part of the solar system without it being immediately tracked and hit by long range missiles? You're going to need several ships to escort it the majority of the way there, and those ships also have to come back and that entire time they could be doing something else.

                Not only that, but how the frick are you so stupid that you can't see how easy of a target a random sattelite sitting with no defensive weapons in a static orbit is? You do realize that orbits can be calculated with mathematical precision, right? You could literally throw a cloud of space junk, at the right angle/velocity/math and take out ANY satelite in the entire solar system. Because you know where it's going to be and when it's going to be there. You could chuck space rocks at it. Railguns. Long range missiles. If you can send a sattelite out that far, you can send a weapon out there. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand? It's completely apparent and should be obvious to even a layman?

                Sensors are going to be clustered in areas where they can be defended. Just like radar installations. "Muh space" is not going to magically make the military start slinging trillions worth of expensive satelites into space and then just hope the enemy doesn't bother blowing them up. What a fricking stupid idea. "Lol we just won't bother trying to destroy our enemy's recon observation platforms because uhhhhhhh"

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >About that, I think you missed that if your drones/screen aren't literally right next to your trajectory, orbital dynamic will NOT make it cheap for you to sync.

                Last part of this absolute brainrot dipshittery.

                Are you familiar with the concept of a carrier strike group? Can you read? (clearly not) Obviously the concepts I aligned rely on line of sight obscuring things being close to the line of sight I'm trying to obscure. You are actually incapable of understanding or reading english, and here you are trying to argue about space chips on an english midwive's oven baking club.

                >muh nukes blow up because stuff too close

                None of these concepts are meant to defend against missiles and nukes. That is what you have interceptors and lasers for. These are specifically meant to address the threat from high speed kinetic weapons and high power lasers.

                Please take a good long look at your life and reconsider literally every single choice you've made that has lead you here.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If you mean simply remote defense/expandable shield drones that get ahead as ablating shield or remote hardkill PDS, this basic enough to not be worth mentioning.

            I meant what I said I meant (next time please read)

            Large screens designed specifically to block LOS. Obviously this is not an invincible tactic, it simply adds a layer to the survivability onion

            >You can't really afford a (say) 500m2 screen, 180°, fully opaque, diffusing the heat it receive from your ship

            I never said the screen would be physically attached to any ship

            >It is no effort to have/deploy sensors at multiple angles

            You can have multiple screens at multiple angles. "Muh sensors" is the most moronic cope in this entire thread. Do you think every single satelite/sensor launch won't be tracked? If your "muh sensor" isn't very well protected it WILL be targeted, it will be dazzled/destroyed/jammed and you WILL be fighting entirely blind.

            >A laser range is such that a screen become ablative armor, or it simply shoot the ship-screen thrusters, its sensors and it become a liability for you.

            The angles/orbits/trajectories are going to be planned out for both fleets weeks in advance of the engagement. With realistic engines/fuel/orbital mechanics neither side is going to rapidly or drastically change trajectory. The screen would be compact until it unfolds, with replaceable segments put into place by small tug drones. Any course adjustments would be made by modular tug drones. The ship screen doesn't need sensors IT IS A FRICKING SCREEN

            >A missile-bus will simply slowly adjust its trajectory based on sensor seeing around your screen & punch through it with sub-missiles.

            If you're widely distributing your sensors instead of concentrating them in range of defenses, once again- they will be targeted, they will be dazzled, and they will be destroyed. You don't need a very powerful laser to wreck the delicate optical components of a sattelite.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              If this were CoadE I would simply delete the screen with nukes or a big laser boat from afar

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                But how will your laser boat survive my 100 km/s railgun slugs?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                From what range? Because I'd just move my ship 100 meters to port and then it'd miss.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                How big of a ship and how fast are you accelerating?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Neither of those matter if the distance is great enough. If you're launching it from Mars. The laser is going to hit you in 3 mins. The railgun is going to take 26 days at 100 km/s.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The laser also won't have the power to do more than illuminate a target more than a light-second away. The railgun round will stay deadly for it's entire course.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Depends on how much energy the laser has. Are you implying that gamma rays don't exist or?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Gamma rays would bust through any mirror you tried to bounce them off of. Creating enough gamma rays to actually damage a ship designed to handle interplanetary radiation would also require so much energy that a ship would need several times the mass of a railgun armed ship.

                Also, we currently don't have any gamma ray lasers. Even the theory on making a gamma ray laser is sparse and incomplete.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Well, we're in a thread about ships that don't exist, so why would I constrain myself to technology we have now? Seems kinda like a cope argument to try and restrain me to current technology while talking about interplanetary spaceships with railguns, no?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Well I managed to get the railgun to work in CoaDE and that uses strictly realistic physics and known science. I'm pretty sure it's plausible if not practical.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Not sure what CoaDE is, but if we're talking in the realm of plausibility; put a big enough energy source in something and you could make a high energy laser weapon. It's not very practical though.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Children of a Dead Earth. The most realistic space combat game you're likely to find. Extremely in depth permitting everything from drones clad in diamonds to kilometer wide death rays with the science of each one painstakingly calculated.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >173kms
                How does this not cause EXPLOSIVE friction? Even if you polished the rails to a mirror finish, the "barrel wear" on your first shot will blow up the barrel completely.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Overengineering and luck, I believe. Seriously, the rails are over a meter thick and then jacketed in a meter of steel. I'm pretty sure the round is exploding and the barrel just contains it.

                Seriously, if I tried to get that round to go any faster I'd get a dozen warnings about "The Bullet is exploding" "The Barrel is Exploding" or "There is not enough room for the turret mechanism"

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Overengineering and luck, I believe. Seriously, the rails are over a meter thick and then jacketed in a meter of steel. I'm pretty sure the round is exploding and the barrel just contains it.
                Okay, but now you've shredded off at least a few millimeters of your barrel. Unless the next shell is precisely engineered to fit in this new larger caliber barrel, it won't physically be touching the rails, which means it won't move.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Probably not a millimeter. The shot it'self is only 2 mm wide. Zirconium copper is also pretty damn tough.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Basically a large super hard sand grain at just under mach 294.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yes the railgun slug stays deadly the whole time, but it's VERY unlikely you're going to hit him unless you're very close, so close that you're well within his range. That's the point. At distances his laser might not be useful at you might as well call yourself "Trunks" because you can't hit him. If your railgun projectile was shot at some notable percentage of C (even just 1% is a huge difference) it'd be a different story, but 100km/s is 0.0003% the speed of light. It's painfully slow when you're shooting at targets potentially thousands of km away. At least with a missile guidance is there but it'd very likely get zapped before it could hit too. To defeat lasers with projectiles they have to be firing them stupidly fast or you have to be enough of a sneaky git to get relatively right up their asses before you fire. Either way you still have to breach any point defense but if you land a hit and it's in a spot not meant to tank high velocity impacts it's gonna hurt.

                Not sure what CoaDE is, but if we're talking in the realm of plausibility; put a big enough energy source in something and you could make a high energy laser weapon. It's not very practical though.

                Children of a Dead Earth. Ship building game. Extremely autistically done but people forget it's still just a video game.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                If the enemy is wasting time shooting down railgun rounds then they aren't shooting the railgun ship. There's also an issue with this kind of fight being a losing battle with a railgun shooting rounds faster than a laser can deflect them.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                100km/s is not 0.0003% the speed of light.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                To make this more impactful (lol) here's some very simple data that makes it clear just how fricked you'd be if he has a laser with even a 1/4 of a light second lethal range (you were way more generous with a 1ls max range) and you've got a 100km/s railgun that is technically lethal at any range.

                1 light second = 299,792.458 kilometers
                1/4th light second = 74,948.1145 km
                1/10th light second = 29,979.2458 km
                At 100km/s it will take a full minute for your slug to hit a target just 6000 km away.
                It'd take the slug just a c**thair shy of 5 minutes to travel 1/10th of a light second which is plenty of time for it to be detected and any number of countermeasures to be taken that will result in you missing him by miles.
                His laser will hit you in 1/10th of a second at that same range.

                You HAVE TO be using a significantly higher velocity railgun or be so close he's probably already melted a bunch of holes in your hull. Again at ranges he can easily hit you, your ship, the "GWFS Princess Trunks", simply cannot hit him unless he straight up allows you to or is caught by surprise.

                If the enemy is wasting time shooting down railgun rounds then they aren't shooting the railgun ship. There's also an issue with this kind of fight being a losing battle with a railgun shooting rounds faster than a laser can deflect them.

                If he let you get close enough for that either your ship is very stealthy, you've pulled off an really good ambush, and/or he's a moron. Chances are he doesn't even need to fire up point defense while you're hoping your hull won't melt.

                100km/s is not 0.0003% the speed of light.

                That's the short version what I got when I converted 100km/s to speed of light. If you want the whole number 100km/s is 0.0003335640952 the speed of light in a vacuum.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >If he let you get close enough for that either your ship is very stealthy, you've pulled off an really good ambush, and/or he's a moron. Chances are he doesn't even need to fire up point defense while you're hoping your hull won't melt.
                I kinda doubt anybody is melting through hulls. A centimeter of synthetic diamonds is usually enough to cool the ship faster than the laser can heat it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Neat, you can't hit him unless you get really lucky and all he has to do is continue lazing while slightly changing course and velocity until he finds a weak spot or your ability to dissipate is overwhelmed. He's still going to win that fight one way or another unless again, you're up his ass.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Frankly, making the opponent dodge is the point. Lasers require massive heat management systems and that's going to make a big, heavy warship. Every maneuver is costing the ship tons of propellant and eventually the laser boat will be forced to chose between continuing it's mission or returning home.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                If he detects it coming he can alter trajectory of your projectile the same way you can asteroids by superheating part of it, which lasers would be exceptionally good for. Could also legit just alter his own course a tiny bit. In atmo 100km is a long ways, that's about the distance from Avdiivka to Lysychans'k. In space you might as well treat it as a knife fight. Missing by an inch might as well be missing by a lightyear in space. It'd be like lobbing Shaheds at a carrier. It can literally just alter course a smidge and get out of the way. Good shot he also saw you coming tens of thousands of km out. Yes you're a tiny object out in the blackness of space, but you're a tiny object that moves in a sea of things that don't, you're a tiny object whose distance away can be measured and tracked, you're a tiny object that is likely emitting.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    My idea for a sci-fi setting is one of an incredibly technophobic humanity making it outside of the solar system through sheer chance. Radios are strictly verboten and computers heavily restricted in their power so conflict is done with wire guided, magnetic, or rudimentarly computer guided gunfire. Yes we could develop more advanced tech but that would make fights boring as it's just missiles being intercepted by other missiles and ships dying randomly to attacks from the other side of the solar system. Much more fun to make it an old fashioned slugfest, both to write and hopefully read. At the end of the day it's fiction and I doubt if and when humanity becomes a spacefaring civilization will they look upon the writings of today and go "golly gee this guy called it", so best to focus on making an entertaining story entertaining instead of engaging in pseudoscientific masturbation

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    My design for a fighter style, high manouverability, short range, ship.
    Propelled by a nuclear fission reaction superheating liquid helium.
    Armed with missiles.

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    a lot of talk about missiles and a lack of stealth in space but strictly speaking it's not entirely true to say there is no stealth in space, it's just a truism. yes muh invisibility is impossible and yes big drives show up very clearly.

    but space is huge and surpringly noisy, and there's only so much sensing one can do. it is at the end of the day a very large haystack and a small enough needle can get lost.

    I suppose my point is, there are a number of nasty tricks one is capable of. hiding systems among debris, civilian satellites, or an active battlefield etc. I think hidden platforms that launch missiles which themselves launch missiles will see use, partially because that's already what Russian uses. kinetic kill systems will absolutely see use in translunar and orbital battlefields because of the energy required to maneuver and the constraints of orbits, as well as the high relative velocities inherent to orbiting. Essentially a series of claymore like systems could create a noisy debris field which would be very hard to move through, every object would need to be detected and plotted which is simply not trivial. even if it couldn't harm the main body it could damage radiators, sensors, lenses and solar panels

    also, missiles are less manueverable than they are on earth and people miss that a lot in these conversations

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >but space is huge and surpringly noisy, and there's only so much sensing one can do. it is at the end of the day a very large haystack and a small enough needle can get lost.
      A metal detector will pick out your needle in an instant and your haystack was 99.99999999999999% empty void.
      Also you grossly overestimate how much a decent computer can track as long as you care to do so.
      https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect.php#id--Strategic_Combat_Sensors--There_Ain&#039;t_No_Stealth_In_Space--Why_Not?_Let_me_count_the_ways--But_Scanning_The_Entire_Sky_Takes_Too_Long

      If you start disguising military ships as civilian, I have to ask you what working setting would accept unregulated spaceship with unknown cargo, especially offensive cargo that justify killing every single civilian ships? Even the current Russian aren't stupid enough to do that and we already assume every army send spy sensor pretending to be weather ballons.

      If you generate too many debris to track in Earth orbit you are not going to care much about winning because everyone lost.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    if you accelerate the ship at 1g consistently you can simulate earth gravity. shape the ship like an office building with the engines at the bottom floor. point the top of the ship at the destination and go. the ship will continuously accelerate at 1g until it reaches halfway to it's destination. at that point the ship will rotate to be facing backwards and fire the engines again decelerating at 1g.

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    My time in space engineers has taught me one thing.
    Space bricks are the future.
    Thick as frick armor, big long box, many gun.
    Think pic rel but 100x bigger and covered in dakka.
    The frick are you gonna do against that?
    It's infinitely scalable, infinitely customizable, and if all else fails, you can just slam your giant spacebrick into whatever pissed you off hard enough to get rid of either you or it.
    >inb4 muh aerodynamics
    It's space, there ain't no air to be odynamic in.

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What I find fascinating is that, despite how vast space is, there are very few routes you can take to go from planet/moon/asteroid/base A to B unless you take a detour that could take you extra months. So, theoretically, there are few orbits from which you can expect to attack/be attacked at each time.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >there are very few routes you can take to go from planet/moon/asteroid/base A to B unless you take a detour that could take you extra months
      Not sure you got it right.
      There is no "routes" in space.
      For example Mars isn't "halfway between Earth & Jupiter", you have an economical launch windows every Earth year and there is no stable place in-between where you can wait that isn't going to be out of sync AND unable to match speed without absurd quantity of propellant.

      You can essentially only wait at the starting point, the destination, or at an intermediate destination you know will be visited.

      https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/misconceptions.php#id--No_Shipping_Lanes_In_Space

      (yes that topic come up a lot when someone ask for space pirates)

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I mean those are still kinda sorta like routes
        Two fleets taking the same trip may well not end up within useful combat distance however

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I object calling those "routes", routes are spatially defined from a static point of reference.
          Ballistic windows are not.

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Nebulous: Fleet Command is a good game of relatively good designed ships. They function as basically submarines in space, with a focus on missiles and EW.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Fellow Nebulous Enjoyer
      Nebulous is actually terrible at simulating space combat. It's actually better for understanding modern concepts of radar and ECM.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Neb is great but the ANS v OSP balance is stupid, I don't care how 'balanced' beams are on paper, they're OP as frick when you HAVE to push caps to win, which means closing into that 6km range.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, OSP really has to gamble on sneaking caps when ANS isn't looking. I have made OSP brawling fleets that could take points but it's always a close thing.

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    big rock going fast

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >A lot of folks on other boards complain that this board is essentialy fricked
    Post your gun with timestamp or go back to space battles you passive aggressive turbo gay.

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Small, stealth, scanners, optics, laser. It should be basically hide and seak until the first spotted dies before they know they were targeted.

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I fricking love torch-drives and wish more sci-fi would use them.
      >decent thrust
      >frickloads of delta-v
      >have to make sure you aren't pointing it at people you like
      >can point it at people you don't like

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Fusion Torch drives fall into this weird category between "We know how to make this right now" and "We don't care if it's physically impossible" which is a shame seeing as you could get a specific impulse of 15 kiloseconds which is insane. Even turbofans don't get that kind of fuel efficiency and they cheat by taking on reaction mass.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          With the improvements in magnetic confinement over the last decade we probably could make them but there is no demand that is going to drive trillions in investment.
          Even if we did build them we can't use them in LEO without supercharing the Van Allen belt and killing every satellite.

          They are great if launching interplanetary missions from the moon in common but until then they don't have use cases IRL.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            We don't have a use case Right Now. If you want to get to other planets it's pretty damn efficient and could pay for it'self if asteroid mining ever takes off.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >We don't have a use case Right Now
              Yeah, I do love them and if we become a proper space fairing species they will play a major role. I just get sad that we are so far from developing a long term plan for space exploration and resource collection.
              We could have had a manned moon base for 50 years if the political will existed.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/EMN3T56.jpg

      Only b***hes and homosexuals use piss-weak shit like NTR or NEP and deals with gay shit like Hohmann transfers or gravity assists, real homies use Nuclear Pulse Propulsion to cruise at 1g+ wherever and whenever they please.

      There are other ways to attain torch drive like performance without requiring absurd designs or designs that are only hypothetical.

  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    does this spacecraft have the aerodynamics to fly in an atmosphere? no nutty anti gravity right

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >spacecraft
      >in atmosphere

  43. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >realistic space vessel

  44. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Only b***hes and homosexuals use piss-weak shit like NTR or NEP and deals with gay shit like Hohmann transfers or gravity assists, real homies use Nuclear Pulse Propulsion to cruise at 1g+ wherever and whenever they please.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I honestly wonder how feasible that would be from a nuclear production standpoint. Even with a developed solar system with a lot of infrastructure, I still feel like that would be expensive as frick to just detonate thousands of nukes per voyage.

  45. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Not OP but I'm doing a writing project of my own and planning out a space station. For power generation in space would mostly solar be best or should it be backed up with a fission plant? Furthermore, what do you guys think is the best radiation shielding to use on a reactor like that since weight and space is going to be a premium up there. Would a DU composite be the right approach considering it's about 3 times as effective as lead for gamma ray absorption?
    I'm already considering a 'water jacket' construction for most of the station to help mitigate cosmic rays and act as an extra source of conductive and radiative cooling.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      solar vs nuclear is an actual real life debate, and I have never seen space autists argue more vehemently about anything else compared to that debate. it depends on its purpose, who owns it, it's size and its location. anything inside of mars, solar makes the most sense. a military base would want a fission backup and probably fuel cells. imo, you're going to be bathed in free energy, might as well use it, you can just convert the power into other energy storage methods for backup.
      weight is less of a premium than you're thinking, unironically. even if we're assuming F9/A6/Vulcan you wouldn't skimp on shielding just for mass, you'd be favouring other factors like efficient cooling and operation. the less you need to resupply the better, the less waste heat the better. there's a reason water jackets are popular in near future hard SciFi and it's because they're practical and non speculative, but if you're a military craft you'd probably be opting for something that doubles as armor, even if armor is of mixed effectiveness in space. but part of the benefits of a water jacket is its ability to also aid in radiation of waste heat and also you're going to need water anyway, you're probably using it for cooling anyway, you already have to have sophisticated water treatment and recycling so... why not use what you have?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Not OP but I'm doing a writing project of my own and planning out a space station. For power generation in space would mostly solar be best or should it be backed up with a fission plant? Furthermore, what do you guys think is the best radiation shielding to use on a reactor like that since weight and space is going to be a premium up there. Would a DU composite be the right approach considering it's about 3 times as effective as lead for gamma ray absorption?
        I'm already considering a 'water jacket' construction for most of the station to help mitigate cosmic rays and act as an extra source of conductive and radiative cooling.

        oh, and part of the advantage of water is that in an emergency you can say "frick it" and, instead of waiting for your heat to radiate, get that water as hot as it can from the waste heat and simply vent it into space. obviously not good for long term operations lol, but if it's that or die, you can always get more water.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Absolutely. I'm also doing some reading on whether it would freeze or boil first in which case it makes the exterior of the station a little more resilient to micrometeorite impacts. since even if they puncture the very outside layer the water jacket freezes before it can escape. I need to finish reading these papers first though.

          solar vs nuclear is an actual real life debate, and I have never seen space autists argue more vehemently about anything else compared to that debate. it depends on its purpose, who owns it, it's size and its location. anything inside of mars, solar makes the most sense. a military base would want a fission backup and probably fuel cells. imo, you're going to be bathed in free energy, might as well use it, you can just convert the power into other energy storage methods for backup.
          weight is less of a premium than you're thinking, unironically. even if we're assuming F9/A6/Vulcan you wouldn't skimp on shielding just for mass, you'd be favouring other factors like efficient cooling and operation. the less you need to resupply the better, the less waste heat the better. there's a reason water jackets are popular in near future hard SciFi and it's because they're practical and non speculative, but if you're a military craft you'd probably be opting for something that doubles as armor, even if armor is of mixed effectiveness in space. but part of the benefits of a water jacket is its ability to also aid in radiation of waste heat and also you're going to need water anyway, you're probably using it for cooling anyway, you already have to have sophisticated water treatment and recycling so... why not use what you have?

          The station is mostly civilian although it's kind of bodged together from various nation states and people adding modules or even defunct shuttles or capsules onto it for more space and facilities. I wouldn't call it ramshackle but definitely chaotic in places. Maybe Kowloon Walled City is the best real life analogy for it with the cramped but happy conditions and industrious growth.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            kek you should read about how the ISS works because it is a cobbled together as frick, intentionally so, because they wanted to make sure no one could have a temper tantrum and split off their modules from the overall station. as long as it is within the habitable zone of a star I would say it would likely be mostly solar power but I would imagine different sections have their own power systems, probably a few simple RTG or fission reactors scattered around

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah, the ISS is extra wild because they can't really update the old modules so anytime they want to add new modules with new technologies it has to be Black person rigged into being backwards compatible with the original designs from the 80s and 90s. But thanks I'll do some more digging into how it functions (or doesn't) in more detail.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > since even if they puncture the very outside layer the water jacket freezes before it can escape.
            I really hope that works. The pressure from the water might shove the ice into space faster than it can plug a hole, though.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              That's the worry, but thankfully we also have surface tension to hold it together at least to a point.

              B5 copied 2010 for that design, though.

              Yeah but I like B5 more. Also its launch method for fighters is neat by just 'dropping' them out of the spinning mass where applicable.

  46. 1 month ago
    Anonymous.

    >"Destroyer".
    >400m length.
    >Crew combat stations are effectively space suits inside dedicated support spheres designed to offer protection from high G's, extra protection from damage, and basically be lived in as space is a premium so why not make the cocoon the primary living space?
    >Amosphere is removed from vessel outside combat suits once combat starts.
    >Vessel has a big wedge on the prow, covering the top of the ship, and has twenty rail-flechette launchers.
    >Combat involves extremely high speed exchanges where rival vessels try to lay these flechettes at such a spread and a path that the other vessel as much steers into them, as they shoot them, ala a mine or torpedo.
    >Space combat can take hours or days and involves a huge amount of maths and ballistics, as well as trying to get in the head of the other ship's captain.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Battleship.
      >Same group as
      >Basically a big frickhueg space station, built around a massive reactor core and a big frickoff gun.
      >Common guns to mount in the core are Quantum Entanglement canons, that use an enormous bank of supercomputers and hypersensitive equipment to manipulate the material at a specific site in real time, allowing a Battleship twenty light-minutes away to calculate the position of a vessel, and then, if correct, suddenly shunt it in half.
      >Other guns, such as solar focusers or mass radiation ejectors, use capacitors and solar cells, atop enormous reactors, to direct and focus enormous amounts of radiation energy at light speed onto a target, literally melting ships.
      >The rest of the "ship", which can often seem like a whole compound, is built around these structures. Layered armour, backup generators, machining factories, farms.
      >These vessels are too enormous, slow, and sensitive to make rapid turns or evasive actions at the more traditional engagement ranges of smaller craft, and are typically studded with thousands of munition defenses and countermeasures, as well as multiple rings of ablative, and adjustable armour.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >gay scifi bullshit
        have a nice day

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's a scifi thread you homosexual fat moron.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Oh okay here’s my space ship
            >cruiser

            [...]

            m
            >made of diamonds
            >crew is elven battle wizards and they all cast nuh uh which retroactively makes you a homosexual

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Cope and Seethe.
              Quantum entanglement, while dry to read, is not that complicated a principle to grasp. It's been a thing since 1935.
              It's literally just the phenomenon in which particles, that which are separated by distance, have states that are correlative, or dependent on the other. A basic highschool class in physics will probably get into concepts where it applies.
              It's like a newtons cradle, if we pretend the balls in the middle don't exist.

              Weaponizing the concept to pull, twist, or punch something really far away through delicate machines and massive supercomputers is kino low scifi.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                idk about LOW scifi, you still need to magic handwave *causality* between the entangled particles, which is - best we know - not how it currently works, and why it won't be able to be used for cool shit like FTL communication.
                It's like how the Alcubierre drive is "reasonable" with the caveat that it needs an exotic material with negative mass-energy.

                I think some squinting is warranted when it comes to FTL and causality-breaking in low scifi.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/2yPpDRk.jpg

        It's a scifi thread you homosexual fat moron.

        It's grounded/hard scifi you colossal paki. Inventing magic "quantum" tech doesn't make it believable unless you think CCP propaganda is believable.

        https://i.imgur.com/wH8br2v.png

        rate the dropship i made for a game project

        The RCS is nice, are they able to swivel in those mounts? Maybe change that wienerpit area to be more flush with the hull and reduce window space to prevent it being torn apart during reentry. You just need small triangular or circular portholes for the pilots to see through in emergencies since most of the time they'll be flying by instrument or some kind of helmet like the F35 which lets you 'see' through cameras.
        Finally, airbrakes are a good idea. It's a pretty free control surface for anything dropping from orbit and its definitely less failure prone than trying to use thrusters for eveything.

        Oh okay here’s my space ship
        >cruiser
        [...]m
        >made of diamonds
        >crew is elven battle wizards and they all cast nuh uh which retroactively makes you a homosexual

        You could have called them Quantum Mathemagicians. Though yeah, the paki absolutely is a homosexual.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Quantum entanglement predates the fricking moon landings, and despite the fact it has the word "Quantum" in it, is absolutely grounded scifi.
          But if you absolutely cannot accept it, fine. Just stick a big nuclear generator next to some huge capacitors, and use it to power a focused microwave laser dish.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

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

            Cope and Seethe.
            Quantum entanglement, while dry to read, is not that complicated a principle to grasp. It's been a thing since 1935.
            It's literally just the phenomenon in which particles, that which are separated by distance, have states that are correlative, or dependent on the other. A basic highschool class in physics will probably get into concepts where it applies.
            It's like a newtons cradle, if we pretend the balls in the middle don't exist.

            Weaponizing the concept to pull, twist, or punch something really far away through delicate machines and massive supercomputers is kino low scifi.

            That’s not how quantum entanglement works you fricking schizo, you can’t just do big math and move different parts of an object around at range. Are you actually fricking moronic

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

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

            Cope and Seethe.
            Quantum entanglement, while dry to read, is not that complicated a principle to grasp. It's been a thing since 1935.
            It's literally just the phenomenon in which particles, that which are separated by distance, have states that are correlative, or dependent on the other. A basic highschool class in physics will probably get into concepts where it applies.
            It's like a newtons cradle, if we pretend the balls in the middle don't exist.

            Weaponizing the concept to pull, twist, or punch something really far away through delicate machines and massive supercomputers is kino low scifi.

            I have a degree in Physics and you are speaking out of the back of your bloch sphere. Quantum entanglement is really fricking annoying to achieve and maintain and you can't just calculate your way to an entangled state. It's a physical property of particles and their states such as polarizing photons to have an entangled polarization state. If you want to generate entanglement between two non-interacting systems you have to juggle entangled states with an intermediary who has one half of an entangled pair with both. That's simply not physically possible with the setup you're trying to describe.
            TLDR. Entanglement is far more complex and annoying a topic than the pop-science fluff you had poured into your head in school. You can't just 'magic' two particles into an entangled state at a distance let alone two macro-scale structures.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              so is it possible to entangle two sets of particles and then transport one set to the place you need to communicate with? I know it's difficult because quantum but let's say the government is offering you dump trucks full of tax free funding to try.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >are they able to swivel in those mounts?
          its for a rts i dont think my partner wants to programm that for x models.
          >reduce window space to prevent it being torn apart during reentry
          i was thinking about adding armored shutters for reentry

  47. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/TdptOs8.jpg

      Always figured the shock of the nukes would destroy the shock absorbers and pusher plates faster than it would accelerate the ship. In space, a nuke doesn't have any atmosphere so most of the propulsion is from whatever you spray on the pusher plate to keep the thing from erroding under the blast. Then there's the radiation and while a single nuke doesn't produce that much rads, continuous nukes are going to cause the whole structure to enbrittle.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The oil sprayed on the pusher plate is the ablative layer, not the reaction mass. That comes from the tungsten plasma pushing the plate at fractional c very briefly before dissipating thanks to some funky plasma physics I wouldn't even pretend to understand beyond it's Leidenfrost effect on steroid. It's still super dangerous but the pusher plate surprisingly isn't in danger of of being destroyed if you take precautions.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The tungsten plasma would end up depositing radioactive isotopes inside the pusher plate. At fractional C matter behaves more like a swarm of particles rather than solid mass. Frankly, I wasn't worried about the heat, I was worried about the pressure. Without atmosphere the whole thing is done in nanoseconds and that much dynamic pressure would crack the pusher plate given enough nukes.

  48. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  49. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    rate the dropship i made for a game project

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Would dropships, like those in battletech that can go from surface to space and back again, actually be feasible IRL?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No because they would have to be lifted back to orbit via chemical rockets or something or else irradiate and roast everything in the vicinity

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >He doesn't know

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Don't light bulbs actually get kinda shit acceleration

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I've heard it's pretty decent. Enough to get escape velocity at least

  50. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Just to give my own two cents, i think the best approach to thinking about space combat is to compare it to aerial combat. Ultimately, it's purpose should be to secure a planets atmosphere and secure the path to landing boots on the ground, just as air superiority helps ground armies advance into enemy territory. Likewise, there should also be a focus on destroying the enemies space infrastructure to set-up your own so that you can reduce their abilities to communicate with each other and use said infrastructure to attack your armies, while securing your own communications and attack capabilities. As such, vessels for space-warfare should essentially be satellites capable of inter-planetary travel, posses several types of telecommunications, and varying degrees of defensive and offensive abilities. The particular designs of such vessels are likely to vary due to doctrinal differences and manufacturing capability, but the principles I've outlined will be at the core of the design of any theoretical military spacecraft.

  51. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's not designed as a warship but was converted into one after the beginning of the first martian revolution in 2150 where the greenhouse module behind the forward command module was removed and replaced with a weapons module full of nukes that can be dropped from orbit onto targets

    Seen here is a mining and supply rover docking up with the ship during its initial construction in the early 2050's before the global nuclear war of the late 2070's

  52. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    > lot of folks on other boards complain that this board is essentialy fricked, useless and provides little to no value.

    I can't even begin to describe how little of a shit I give about what the other boards or you think about /k/. Frick off back to whatever poltroon twink hole you came from.

    Enough for a (you), I guess.

  53. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Wouldn't a ship using a droplet radiator be able to use some cheap and lightweight container along the path of the droplets in order to contain them, especially during maneuvering? The container isn't being used to radiate the heat so it could be extremely lightweight, even see through.

  54. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Sounds like you want something that'd likely be in the early days of space colonization. Basically still largely bound to earth and solar system with very little ever going past that.
    >constructed in orbit mostly from materials found in space
    >very large compared to the ISS
    >not meant to ever enter atmosphere
    >ISS style collapsible solar panels
    >outer hull designed to deal with and disperse intense heat and radiation while being able to take hits from space junk, extra thick and would make it look like a bullet from most angles
    >inner hull designed entirely around utility, likely looks greebled as frick
    >may be unoccupied space between inner and outer hulls as outer hull is basically just a giant shield
    >cameras, various sensors, and drones used for vision instead of windows
    >semi-autonomous drones instead of manned fighters
    >plasma, ion, or nuclear based propulsion
    >powerful RCS or plasma, ion, nuclear equivalent
    >safety measures to ensure the crew can't pull so many ±Gs that they accidentally kill themselves, higher limit than civ ships
    >solar sails for long trips
    >laser based weaponry to help reduce the risk of Kessler syndrome that comes with projectiles
    >powerful EFP and shaped charge missiles just in case
    >boarding "beak" at front of vessel meant to ram through outer hulls before breaching inner hulls
    >escape pods with everything you need to survive for a week that are capable of surviving reentry
    >magnetic footwear with a smart controller of some sort for walking instead of floating
    >bridge and CIC resemble those found on modern submarines but with notably more advanced technology present
    >water treatment, auquaponics, rec areas, and all sorts of other things to cover basic needs of crew for extended trips

    >ship's propulsion generating the gravity on the ship
    You mean like constant acceleration? Why even bother? That'd be fricking moronic on a ship expected to stop and fight instead of purely going from A to B.

  55. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Anyone else think that SF starships are just too fricking big? A single one of Galactica's flight pods (Pegasus is bigger) or the rotating section of the Omega class is several times larger than the largest military ship ever built, yet they seem to carry about the same amount of fighters and crew, and let's not even get started on fricking Star Wars and Halo. The Donnager and Enterprise-D are honestly as big as it should get. The Donny is """only""" 500 meters long (aka the size of Taipei 101) and has enough room for an entire hangar of corvettes/frigates/destroyers inside of it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It really depends on the setting, what propulsion is being used and what the capabilities of the ship are or what you want them to be. Having armor at all that can stop anything would take some pretty thick armor plating, which would necessitate a ship to have enough power and propellant for the increase in weight which would in turn make warships have a sort of minimum size because of that. Honestly having warships be of similar size to that of modern naval warships isn't that absurd, particularly if you already have decent industry set up in space already so that the economics wouldn't make it absurd via having to lift everything into orbit.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        the other big question is sustainment. how long are you planning to be moving about in the black? How many tons of fuel is that going to take?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      they are, it's moronic. most SciFi has no regards for reality, they just make things big because it looks cool to apes on camera. and then internet fanboys try to work backwards to justify it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Humans are one of the biggest drains on expendables and automation gets better and better. Eventually, you can have kilometer long battleships essentially being flown by a single person.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Anyone else think that SF starships are just too fricking big?
      I don't understand what you mean.

      To be fair, space is the one place where you have no stress due to gravity.
      You may have trouble accelerating or rotating but what is more silly in Sci-fi is that reactionless thrusters still look like huge directional rocket nozzle.

  56. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Autists of the Dead Earth are possibly the most annoying spaceship fans out there.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Autists of the Dead Earth are possibly the most Intelligent spaceship fans out there
      FTFY

  57. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >No warp drive sublight stuff
    It's a nonstarter, tyranny of rocketry means there's nothing out there that could ever be worth fighting over, hence, these don't exist in any form. Who would it fight? It can only reach the area around earth and there's only earth people there and if you're going to fight people on earth you can do so on earth.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      16 Psyche is worth several quadrillion dollars. It is worth dozens of times more than the entire global economy combined.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsed_nuclear_thermal_rocket

      You don't need fancy hypothetical rockets in order to achieve semi-torch drive capabilities. There is also more to space than just "stuff" to fight over. Colonization and controlling the gravity well of worlds effectively means you "own" that world. Along with the near infinite amount of resources up for the taking and industrial manufacturing processes that can only be achieved with zero G.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Thio's MTF design is even better than the pulsed NTR. Use the propellant itself as a tool to cause a fusion reaction, it will absorb the radiation and thermal energy almost perfectly, and you have a high-thrust engine with easily over 50000 Isp that doesnt need miles of radiators or meters of radiation shielding. Its like an orion drive, but instead of getting slammed by a multi-kiloton nuke every 10 seconds, you are getting pushed by a manageable sub-kiloton blast a hundred times a second.

  58. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    God I really wish there were more series like first 3 seasons of The Expanse.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That seemed like a lot of g-force to survive.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        that's why people die in the setting getting strokes from high g maneuvers or sustained high burns, even with magic future anti g juice

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          In the Expanse it's entirely possible to kill your own crew with hard enough turns or acceleration. God, I love the worldbuilding of that show.

          That's fair. I think I watched up until the point where the woman found hawking radiation. I'm pretty sure it's only 3 or 4 episodes in or something. I haven't actually seen it.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        In the Expanse it's entirely possible to kill your own crew with hard enough turns or acceleration. God, I love the worldbuilding of that show.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        if crew compartment is near axis of the spin gforce from spin would be negligible - real killer gforces are from acceleration when engine works

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I think its funny how the hard sci-fi crowd is ardently against the concept of "space fighters," but the Expanse has ships that basically fighter sized which get a pass. This is only a bit bigger than a MiG-25.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That's because they're space PT boats. You get some wiggle room when you don't try to rip off WW2 dramas.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          This, "space fighters" would really be in the role of bombers releasing cruise missiles to use a modern example.
          >launch from a carrier
          >fire ordnance far ahead of actual fleet
          >return to carrier
          >rinse repeat

          You could also, if the fight is happening in orbit, have them enter different orbits so that you can strike unexpectedly from different angles and at different times than the fleet which can serve to either catch the enemy off guard or to overwhelm their defenses through missile spam. Would also be useful in a policing sort of way if you have smaller crafts being a nuisance in a large area where it would be expensive to maneuver larger warships constantly to interdict them, so having smaller strike craft with smaller delta v budgets (still probably in the few to dozen km/s range) is a much smarter thing to do. It would be like having to maneuver an entire carrier strike fleet just to interdict Somalian pirates dicking around. You wouldn't do that, you either have smaller ships or you launch the planes and have them do it.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        By mass this is like 8 times the Mig-25. Also those were not really used in large battles in the show. More like pirate hunters.

  59. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why argue kinetics vs lasers when the missile is clearly the king of space?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >At least with a missile guidance is there but it'd very likely get zapped before it could hit too.
      Your missile is probably going to be slower than his railgun slug unless it's been accelerating for long enough. Then the problem there is maneuvering will be hot garbage making adjustments to track an evading ship a real bastard.

      Frankly, making the opponent dodge is the point. Lasers require massive heat management systems and that's going to make a big, heavy warship. Every maneuver is costing the ship tons of propellant and eventually the laser boat will be forced to chose between continuing it's mission or returning home.

      Calling it "dodging" is more than a little excessive. "Lazily listing to the left" would legitimately be more extreme than what would be necessary. At the ranges we're talking about if he changes his course by something like half a degree or barely reduces or increases velocity you miss by a lot. The required lead would be utterly gargantuan at ranges he can hit you from. If you can figure out a no contact accelerator that can at least hit 1% speed of light the fight is MUCH more balanced but still generally in his favor at range.

      Again, your best bet with your 100km/s railgun is ambushes, trickery, and stealth. If you actually manage to get close before you light him up he's fricked. At such low projectile velocity your railgun ship is a knife fighter.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Your missile is probably going to be slower than his railgun slug unless it's been accelerating for long enough. Then the problem there is maneuvering will be hot garbage making adjustments to track an evading ship a real bastard.
        A swarm of missiles will run the enemy out of fuel pretty quick, they will be better at maneuvering than a big ship. You will either have to make them not hit you by using Countermeasures or destroy them, destroying a large number of missiles geared towards surving laser attacks will be pretty hard especially the number of potential threats as the enemy is only limited by mass used instead of power and considering the ship that attacked you might even deploy additional weapons like kinetics or DEWs.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Oh no! A swarm of missiles has been detected 20,000km out! Whatever shall I do?!
          >Oh right... we have a very accurate very powerful laser.
          >... Wait a minute... they're going so slow that if we just do a 5 second burn we'll be out of maneuvering range for them before they can even get to us...
          >BUT I WANTED TO FIRE ZE LASER!!!
          Missiles are great but you're going to have to be even sneakier than railgun bro, use railgun assisted launching, and/or use big frickers that still have range related problems even if they're harder to kill. They're also guaranteed SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive than a railgun slug which is significantly more expensive than firing ze laser. Only the obscenely wealthy and formal militaries are likely to just be able to casually spam missiles. The sneaky thing I'd do with missiles is disguise them as small asteroids or space junk. Then leave them drifting as a mine. Hostile ship gets close the missile wakes up and hits the gas. Basically a minefield where the mines will chase you down when you get close enough to them. Otherwise I'd reserve missiles for point defense and anti-fighter use.

          I don't think you're understanding the scale of combat here. Thousands, likely tens of thousands of kilometers, is fricking massive and why even a 100km/s railgun slug would be relatively slow even though that projectile is traveling at a little over mach 293.8. This isn't going to be stylized fighting where the ships are right next to each other like you see in Star Wars, Battlestar, Halo, or Star Trek. Even in "knife fighting" range ships are going to be a couple hundred km from each other.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The missile will always have more delta v and acceleration than the ship

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              And WAY less fuel. If your missile spends all it's fuel accelerating to catch up it's going to have basically nothing for maneuvering and could STILL end up not able to accelerate enough to catch the ship.

              Again, get the scale of combat in your head. The distances we're talking about are potentially multiple times the diameter of the earth. These are huge absurdly huge distances. So huge "light second" is a useful unit of measure. At the distances your plan would be effective railgun bro would've been lighting you up already and would be plenty capable of shooting down your missiles. You're playing his game and he's the king of it. The laser ship has to have been ambushed or otherwise taken by surprise because otherwise they're engaging you from extremely far away, so far they have ages to react to your attempts and plenty of ways to counter.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Being forced to evade is a big deal for big ships. Especially when you're up against missiles which wouldn't allow subtle maneuvers. The ship would need to burn hard to escape the engagement cone of the missile and if the missile's are following an attack plan then escaping one engagement cone would just put you in the middle of another engagement cone. You could try to escape the entire pattern but that would mean burning a LOT of fuel and a laser-centric ship would be Very big due to all those heat sinks and radiators. Squared-cube law still applies in space so that big ship might run out of fuel just dodging missiles.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Honestly, the laser probably isn't going to be hitting the missiles at these extreme ranges. A railgun is one thing since both weapons are limited by the mechanical tolerances of their mounts but a missile can make corrections on the way to the target.

            The James Web telescope has a pointing accuracy of one arcsecond and it doesn't have to deal with heating, cooling, the maneuvering of the vessel and target, and the fact that just about everything created by any military is always made to the lowest bidder. Assuming a tolerance of 1 arc second then at 1 light second ranges the beam will have a 12 meter margin of error.

            Things really get interesting when you realize the missiles will be armored. Not traditionally armored but designed specifically to resist lasers. Graphite aerogel, synthetic diamonds, aramid fibers, or even nitrile rubber will do. All that extra mass just means the missile hits the target that much harder.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Not really arguing against the advantages of a laser vs a railgun but I think employing flak gun tactics could make a 100km/s gun useful in space defense. Instead of one gun and a gigantic slug, have dozens of smaller guns firing or have a shotgun style load for railguns that fire a cloud of projectiles in the direction of the attackers. It would still only be viable using like a few battalions worth of guns, and if you've spotted them further out where you could prepare and fire several times, but you'd have better hit probability then only having a smaller force of more powerful railguns. You can spot a force from further out then a 1/4 of a light second most likely, 12 1/2 minutes for travel time before a slug meets the same distance as the 1/4 light second example you have for the lethal range of a laser, so you could get several volleys in at Saturn distance

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Please note I was only able to get the muzzle velocity to 100km/s by dropping the bullet mass to 1 gram.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Saturation is definitely one of the ways to try and improve your chances at hitting but the spread would be gigantic farther out. Even a tight pattern at 1km is likely to be abysmally huge even 100km out. Personally I'd want a battery of very powerful extremely high velocity guns. 100km/s

          Ideally you'd want all 3 weapon types onboard but in a situation where each ship is only using it's specific type there's a bit of a hierachy.
          Laser is king of range and kiting.
          Railgun is king of close combat until you get into notable percentages of C.
          Missile is king of spam.

          Honestly, the laser probably isn't going to be hitting the missiles at these extreme ranges. A railgun is one thing since both weapons are limited by the mechanical tolerances of their mounts but a missile can make corrections on the way to the target.

          The James Web telescope has a pointing accuracy of one arcsecond and it doesn't have to deal with heating, cooling, the maneuvering of the vessel and target, and the fact that just about everything created by any military is always made to the lowest bidder. Assuming a tolerance of 1 arc second then at 1 light second ranges the beam will have a 12 meter margin of error.

          Things really get interesting when you realize the missiles will be armored. Not traditionally armored but designed specifically to resist lasers. Graphite aerogel, synthetic diamonds, aramid fibers, or even nitrile rubber will do. All that extra mass just means the missile hits the target that much harder.

          Why wouldn't it hit? It'd undoubtedly be built to hit things from frickoff huge distances. 12 meters at 1 light second is a hell of a lot better than missing by kilometers because the helmsman of the other ship tapped the gas. It's also likely by the time any of this is viable the accuracy will be more refined. It's also not like it's space phalanx. You can leave that beam running and sweep. A ship based weapon is going to be built with the issues you mentioned in mind regardless of if it's a railgun, laser, or missile launcher.

          The missile has to get to the target first which can be a HUGE pain in the ass when they're already firing on you from 20,000-30,000km away. They'll have the time to straight up kite your missile into no longer being able to hit them. Then it has to get past the target's point defense and defeat it's armor.

          Please note I was only able to get the muzzle velocity to 100km/s by dropping the bullet mass to 1 gram.

          That'd still hit obscenely fricking hard, it's just not going to be all that useful at anything but relatively close range simply due to travel time vs significantly greater effective range and significantly higher velocity of the laser.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Accidentally skipped a thought there...
            >100km/s
            guns would be stellar for closer work and probably ridiculous overkill for CIWS duty.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It would probably be limited to defense I'd think. The hit probability as you said is still piss poor, but assuming the invasion force is pretty sizeable I think I would slow them down a bit, and if you have a decent amount of lead time you could really saturate an area. It would be better is if the shots could proximity detonate, limited self guidance, or control the release of the shot.

            If they're a large invasion force you could disrupt their origin points a bit better or force the commander to spread his forces over a much larger area. this is the biggest weakness, if they're moronic like stars wars or something you could probably do a good amount of damage doing that, but just any sane commander would just spread his forces out if they have a lot of these installations. Still, this would probably delay their actions and make a defeat in detail easier if you could disrupt their movements

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Why wouldn't it hit? It'd undoubtedly be built to hit things from frickoff huge distances. 12 meters at 1 light second is a hell of a lot better than missing by kilometers because the helmsman of the other ship tapped the gas. It's also likely by the time any of this is viable the accuracy will be more refined. It's also not like it's space phalanx. You can leave that beam running and sweep. A ship based weapon is going to be built with the issues you mentioned in mind regardless of if it's a railgun, laser, or missile launcher.
            The problem is efficiency. Again. You can hit a missile with the laser, yes, but you need to keep hitting the missile to eventually cook it. A quick flash might fry the sensors but the missile could network with other missiles or some other trick to ensure accuracy.
            >That'd still hit obscenely fricking hard, it's just not going to be all that useful at anything but relatively close range simply due to travel time vs significantly greater effective range and significantly higher velocity of the laser.
            Oh definitely. The problem is that there's no room for a bursting charge so the gun is basically using rate of fire alone.

            Basically a large super hard sand grain at just under mach 294.

            Yep. Stole the idea from the Macron Gun. I'd shrink the shot down even more but the game doesn't process rounds smaller than 1 gram.

  60. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    For CIWS/PD, would a high fire rate low caliber gun (think Vulcan or GAU-8) or a low fire rate high caliber gun (think OTO Melara) be better for shooting down missiles? Assuming they had some kind of laser coating to make thermal kill undoable. Volume of fire or clouds of submunitions?

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