What would damage control look like for a spaceship?

In most sci-fi I watch, there never appears to be any kind of damage control like what we see in modern naval vessels. Most of the time, the Captain is just sitting there as they get updates on how their ship is getting torn to pieces. Sailors are basically firefighters on vessels that assist in keeping the boat from sinking...So what would that look like on a spaceship?

I mean, obviously they aren't fighting fires so much as solving incredibly complex engineering issues in the middle of an interstellar gunfight but wouldn't it make sense to ensure every crewmember on board can fix the ship in a pinch? Or is that such a difficult skill that it would be impossible to man such a vessel?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Hot damn, I forgot about BSG!

      My only gripe would be that they aren't all wearing pressurized suits but that would have made the budget insane. They clearly gave a damn about the realism of the show for at least the first two seasons.

      It really does feel like the show needed 5 seasons to fully flesh the story out.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >It really does feel like the show needed 5 seasons to fully flesh the story out.
        Weren't they basically out of story by the end of season 2 or 3 and were just making shit up as needed?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The empty mystery box just needed more time to be empty

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >It really does feel like the show needed 5 seasons to fully flesh the story out.
        What it needed was a story in the first place.

        It suffered the exact same problem Twin Peaks had, it wasn't meant to be a thriller with a mysterious plot that gets revealed over time.
        That's just the hook to get viewers watching, then it becomes a character drama using hack-writing and soap-opera style twists, revelations and constant conflict and betrayal.
        That this happens in a sci-fi setting is just an attempt to make geeks watch days of our lives and not know it.

        David Lynch did kind of the same thing with less soap opera stuff between characters but still basically just random contrivances on a character show, not an episodic exploration of a mystery which is what got people watching.

        Once viewers realise it's a giant bait&switch, they stop watching. Wishing that they actually got their bait doesn't change anything because it never existed.

        There's no live bait on the hook, it's one of colourful plastic lures. Getting it off the hook still wouldn't be a win.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >That's just the hook to get viewers watching, then it becomes a character drama using hack-writing and soap-opera style twists, revelations and constant conflict and betrayal.
          See also: SG: Universe and Heroes
          Also older Aarron Spelling shows including Kindred: The Embraced

          I blame Lynch for starting it with Twin Peaks. The use of implied mystery to replace actual writing and the use of a veneer of sophistication and complexity to conceal a crude setup and plot-free, continuity-free hack writing that the audience wouldn't watch intentionally.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Considering everyone and their mother was secretly a Cylon in that show, the loss of actual human life in that clip is minimal

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Considering everyone and their mother was secretly a Cylon in that show, the loss of actual human life in that clip is minimal
        Yeah but in that clip, a cylon just ordered a cylon to kill a mix of humans and cylons and we don't know if a resurrection ship was within range.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        There were only ever 12 models, 5 of those only had a single active consciousness at a time.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That is on the short list of spoilers that retroactively ruin the entire program.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          A consequence of a show going on too long when the premise has secret people doing secret things dependent on gotcha moments. Shows like that quickly become an ouroboros of writer moronation. The BSG revival should have gone on for only two to three seasons at most.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The BSG revival should have gone on for only two to three seasons at most.
            I don't know what it would have taken to save the show but a good start would have been if the writers had anything like a plan the way they insisted their characters had.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              damon lindelof and jj abrams ruined tv for a fricking decade at least. i hated that endless mystery box, zero consistency, zero forethought BIG TWIST EVERY WEEK garbage era

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >damon lindelof and jj abrams ruined tv for a fricking decade at least
                It started even earlier with Twin Peaks. I think that's where'd I'd date the start of that whole cut-up method, soap opera style mystery.

                Abrams redeemed himself somewhat with Fringe and Almost Human, not sure what happened on the Star Wars sequels.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >DA VIRUS IS TOO STRONG
      >WE CAN'T NETWORK DA COMPUTERS
      dumb

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Probably very similar to submarine damage control

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      with a less exciting pressure differential

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This is where the exploding computer terminals from old ass star trek episodes come in.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      In submarines, breach is a death sentence. External repairs can only be done when surfaced.
      That's not the case for space ships.
      Everyone could wear suits pre combat and preemptively depressurize comparments to minimize catastrophic damage. External repairs can be done given cover or concealment.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No, but given the fact that space combat will be entirely missiles, and armor is probably too heavy to mount on a spacecraft, any hit will have a high probability of killing.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What the frick are you talking about, there is no friction in space. Mass is not that important, since you'd have to have hyper-efficient engines anyways for there to be space battles and exploration.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Mass is not that important, since you'd have to have hyper-efficient engines anyways
            These do not exist and there's no particular reason to assume they will.

            Mass resists acceleration which is the painful part of space flight. Being able to manoeuvrer is more important than being armoured.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You misunderstand what anon said and you are dead-wrong about mass.

            Every gram matter, if you double the mass of your spaceship with armor, but don't add a squared quantity in propellant mass (drop tank or else), your Delta Velocity budget will be diminished by half.
            It limit your total range.
            It also limit your ability to use more propellant to save time and not travel for months.

            That's part of why spaceship will certainly be more like glass cannon.
            The other reasons:
            - relative speed give projectile more kinetic power than any reasonable armor can protect against
            - some part of a spaceship can't be armored at all.

            There's ideas for the radiators but it will remain very difficult and the magnetized liquid-metal kind might have too much loss.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        you'd actually want to keep the whole thing pressurised, but not with oxygen because fire bad, so that spallation or fragments don't have 0 drag

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >but wouldn't it make sense to ensure every crewmember on board can fix the ship in a pinch?
    Depends on what you're dealing with. A good guide would be the ISS's damage control/contingency procedures, the thing is covered in sensors and the crew can patch up leaks, surprisingly small holes aren't that big a deal. They don't just suck you out, it's a slow loss of pressure and you can float over and patch it with a kit. All large debris is monitored. There's a great video from 2020 or so of the aftermath of a Russian/Chinese ASAT test where the ISS got notified it might hit a debris field and the crew began getting ready to evacuate.

    I can't tell you too much about fuel lines or electrical stuff except that apparently the ISS uses ammonia for cooling and that shit is treated extremely seriously. But it's all also mapped out.

    And as for battle damage no clue. I assume it'd be limited to patching up any holes that occur, isolating or routing around damaged systems, and evacuating/whatever if critical damage happens. No clue about fire.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      A woman made a hole in the ISS with a drill and nothing happened

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >we're still doing that stupid fricking meme
        No, a dumbass Russian worker slipped with a drill, put a hole in it and decided to tell nobody out of fear for his job.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          She's not going to frick you, bro. Calm down.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not a big science guy but would delta P be a problem in vacuum? Cause at that point you would just need to close the bulkhead in that section to wait for repairs on the outside in a shipyard

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If you expect to get shot at, have the crew suit up and depressurize the ship.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This. The Traveller Sci Fi RPG makes this standard for the same reason OP suggested it: Hits that crack structural integrity won't cause explosive decompression and stuff everywhere. Expect spray foam patch kits for anything larger than tiny punctures.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The ISS runs at 1 atm but there's nothing stopping you from (on another ship, the ISS is particular about pressure) bringing it down and having everyone in masks/suits. Pic related is the F-16, note that after 24,000 ft it gives you a 5 psi differential. 20,000 ft wienerpit pressure is like 0.4 atm. You begin to get fricked up physical effects from exposure to pressures below 0.1 atm or so. A small hit in that environment wouldn't be that bad, you could float over and tape something down over it.

      So no, not really anon. You're dealing with 6 psi to 0 psi in this case. Or if you decide to just wear full pressure suits (which you probably should if you expect a big hit followed by full depressurization) you're fine regardless.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the problem with DC in somewhere like the ISS is that you don't have direct access to the hull of the ISS from the interior. you have payload racks, equipment modules, storage, padding and other crap over just about every interior surface. so to even know a module is holed you have to close it off, and check which module the leak is in. then you have to find where the leak is in the module, then you have to access it, which may be a huge pain in the ass. you may have to deadline something important like a life support or water processing. once you have access to the leak, then sure, shit going out is easier to stop.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah the famous incident where a dude got forced through a two foot long (but thin) opening and shot 10 meters out in meaty chunks was 9 atmospheres to 1. That's 80 or 90 meters of water. A depressurization from 0.5 atm to 0 would be, well, 5 meters.

        So I guess the scene where ripley kills the human/Xenomorph newborn in alien 4 was bullshit?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          they just had really dense air on that ship

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      well, to quote one of the funniest lines in futurama, space ships are designed to handle between zero and one atmospheres of pressure, so delta p shouldn't be that big of a deal.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah the famous incident where a dude got forced through a two foot long (but thin) opening and shot 10 meters out in meaty chunks was 9 atmospheres to 1. That's 80 or 90 meters of water. A depressurization from 0.5 atm to 0 would be, well, 5 meters.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Depends how big the hole is. If it's small enough, you just need something good for ~15 PSI to plug the hole with. If the breach is big enough it can pull people right off their feat and into space. 70 mph winds have done it and some say a hull breach will make 100 mph winds.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      you would not go into combat with pressurized compartments - any hit would mean using thrusters to compensate for thrust from depressurization this would mean loss of control and/or manoeuvrability
      - impact debris would be sucked into unpressurized parts of the ship damaging equipment, said parts will get pressurized briefly and damage from rapid pressure changes can occur if they are not designed to withstand it
      - in reality anyone on spaceship in battle would be suited up and strapped into some gforce stress reducing contraption near center of the mass anyway as any evasive manoeuvrer would mean your thrown into wall or ceiling with 10g or more...
      - in fiction, and in visual media especially you want to see actors/characters face so everything is pressurized, with "artificial gravity" and gforce reducing drugs/fields or some other space magic to make things cheaper to film and actors actually doing heroic things instead of being strapped to some bdsm device not being able to lift a finger trough all the action.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >any hit would mean using thrusters to compensate for thrust from depressurization
        Is this relevant at all if the ship can maneuver at any meaningful fraction of 1g?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          even if its minor force compared to fully functioning thruster system it will occur only if you are damaged - and then your thrusters might be inoperable, fuel delivery damaged and running on fumes - why risk running out of control and showing your soft underbelly to the enemy when you are damaged? and uncontrollable thrust is not your friend generally as it will most probably make you spin - making everyone's day more miserable than it already was...

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yes because there’s a significant cost to any thrust

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Is this relevant at all if the ship can maneuver at any meaningful fraction of 1g?
          Like, not just the main engine but the RCS too?
          Boy, that's powerful engine you've got there.
          And as the other anon said, it cost propellant to turn, especially if your RCS aren't as efficient as the main engine.

          I don't actually think depressurization will have noticeable impact like

          you would not go into combat with pressurized compartments - any hit would mean using thrusters to compensate for thrust from depressurization this would mean loss of control and/or manoeuvrability
          - impact debris would be sucked into unpressurized parts of the ship damaging equipment, said parts will get pressurized briefly and damage from rapid pressure changes can occur if they are not designed to withstand it
          - in reality anyone on spaceship in battle would be suited up and strapped into some gforce stress reducing contraption near center of the mass anyway as any evasive manoeuvrer would mean your thrown into wall or ceiling with 10g or more...
          - in fiction, and in visual media especially you want to see actors/characters face so everything is pressurized, with "artificial gravity" and gforce reducing drugs/fields or some other space magic to make things cheaper to film and actors actually doing heroic things instead of being strapped to some bdsm device not being able to lift a finger trough all the action.

          The mass of oxygen at 1apm isn't going to be high, at 1apm it's not going to go out fast.
          Even if it's your pressurized air canister leaking it's not going to matter for a ship that will be far more massive.

          If something make you spin it will be leaking pressurized propellants.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, that's what I was thinking. The pressure difference between 0 and human-tolerable (doesn't need to be even 0.5 atm if it's got a bit more oxygen% than usual) isn't much and if it's leaking out fast enough to be noticeable, it won't do that for long.
            And if the ship's seriously hit, all the pressurized tanks, etc. will have a much larger effect than that.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              why have oxygen everywhere? it is fire hazard 101 - if you remove oxygen you wont have a fire.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Space is between 1 and 0 atmospheres. That's only 14PSI.

      Not a big deal. Your car tires are 30-80PSI. Airplane tires can be 300PSI. Compressed gas tanks can be 8000PSI.

      Your soda bottle is 4-8 atmospheres.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >In most sci-fi I watch, there never appears to be any kind of damage control like what we see in modern naval vessels.
    The Expanse has regular and complex damage control moments in its battles. There's nearly always something that breaks or jams during combat sequences.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    PU foam everywhere with Kingdomcum.ogg playing as alarm

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >assuming autocannon, lasers and space mines
    >assuming ships and stations like we understand them
    For large combat platforms, the vehicle would fight depressurized, vastly simplifying in-combat damage control. Assuming your ship survives, the crew is then going to scan, slowly pressurize and patch the crew compartments after combat -- or bring it into drydock and have station engineering take care of it.
    Ships will have somewhat active, redundant, sensor laden structures. This will allow damaged components to be ejected as needed.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I would imagine the most common damage control task would be sealing holes with some kind of sealing foam, maybe? Also, taking care of radiators should be super critical to cool down weapons and engines. A ship with fricked up radiators would be cooked quickly in a vacuum.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If it is that big of a deal then all combat unit has to go with ablative nozzle and evaporative cooling because the point of a radiator is use surface area to transfer heat and thickness gets in the way.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Ideally you could have both deployable radiators and evaporative cooling. Stow them during combat, then deploy again when it's over. I don't know about the exact math but evaporative cooling could not realistically last for long and would be used sparingly as you are losing mass constantly.
        There are more "exotic" solutions like moving charged particles inside a magnetized loop or using very strong currents to steer a plasma to get rid of the heat.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If it is that big of a deal then all combat unit has to go with ablative nozzle and evaporative cooling because the point of a radiator is use surface area to transfer heat and thickness gets in the way.

      cobalt dust and dusty plasma radiators are basically immune to damage unless you hit them right in the nozzle. I assume we'll have those figured out long before regular space combat becomes practical in the first place

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        dust and droplet radiators are awesome and i wish more people knew of them

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Wait, are those the famous droplet radiators? But if you turn too fast, wouldn't the droplets miss the other end, effectively losing coolant?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >But if you turn too fast, wouldn't the droplets miss the other end, effectively losing coolant?
            Yeah, manoeuvring while they're in use would lose coolant which is an issue. There's also problems with the droplets needing to land in a precise area, splashes are an issue and there's various tricks used to prevent that (ferroliquids/liquid coating the catchment surface etc).
            You'd have to kill the radiator flow during a manoeuvrer, you probably couldn't use it during a battle or only for short bursts.

            This would probably be built into the flight control systems, they'd have to shut off the radiators during a manoeuvrer and turn them back on when attitude is stable again.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    For a start a spaceship is unlikely to survive any attack, it's going to be a glass-cannon.
    If extraordinarily it does, the damage will be somewhere not pressurized (and that never was).

    You let the computer stabilize the spaceship and tell you what broke.
    You don't exactly have the luxury of carrying spare part. Every gram count.
    Most you can hope to do is dismantle a half-broken system to repair another until you reach minimum functionality.

    Finally those system have no reason to be in a pressurized atmosphere and will likely be in radioactive area.
    Doing EVA is dumb, the future will be remote-control robots with interface that give more dexterity than you ever would in a skintight spacesuit.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      But the Enterprise isn't a rocket ship overly concerned about shit but doesn't think Anon. The Enterprise literally has force fields. Why the frick wouldn't they pressurize it?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >You don't exactly have the luxury of carrying spare part. Every gram count.
      Oh frick off. Your image can frick off too.
      >LE NO LUXURY IN LE SPACE
      I am so tired of this autistic redditard mindset about spaceflight because gormless morons like you have no sense of imagination or adventure. Every vessel humans have ever built has had some level of comfort even at the expense of payload. The Soviets put a fricking pool on a ballistic missile submarine. British capital ships have a bar for officers. The US Navy just sent a fricking dog to an aircraft carrier in the middle of a combat zone because they thought it would be fun for the sailors. Modern spaceflight is still spartan because it's in it's infancy. As space commercializes and launches become commonplace you WILL see luxuries and creature comforts creeping their way into space by the simply virtue of people wanting them. Combat spacecraft won't be an exception. Thinking about future spaceflight like it's the Apollo program is moronic. Yes, a military space ship will have fricking spare parts. It would be suicidally stupid to sent a craft into combat without them.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You rebellious kid miss the point.
        Fiction usually copypaste sea-vessel and have pointlessly large corridors room for no fricking reason, and extra metal to contain all that air mean extra mass. You don't need to make 80% of the spaceship volume pressurized, it's even more of a risk.

        Every gram count because unlike sea-ship where it just cost a bit more with no noticeable effect, in space extra mass reduce your range&acceleration exponentially.
        Past what's easy to carry, the only spare you can afford is having redundancy on your spaceship so you can hopefully disassemble a broken system to repair another less broken.

        And you'll have only as much luxury as you can afford.
        If you travel in a frigging space utopia, sure, that cruiser will have artificial gravity and a pool.
        If you travel in a military warship, be happy if they give you better accommodation than a submarine and a full-VR entertainment pod.

        Of course they won't let you go batshit insane and it will shape how warfare is done.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          so you basically want an unarmored aircraft carrier + expendable unmanned suicide "aircraft" as weapons. maybe a couple of transports like in BSG for manned ops, but that's it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            aircrafts - plural.
            maybe unmanned or piloted by clones or sth.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >aircrafts - plural

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            To answer your question we would have to set a context, both technological and political, to minute detail.
            "space carrier" is kind of a soft-SF trope that's very hard to justify in realistic space warfare.

            I want no space war other than in reality-grade VR entertainment.
            Should I be forced to have a war, I want a warship approaching a station without shooting out of fear of mutual destruction, deploying space marines with melee weapons who fight to take control of the critical system to force a surrender.
            Should I not get any choice I expect a spam of interplanetary missiles-bus against laser-platforms followed by Mutual Assured Destruction as both side did the same.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              it could stay outside of the effective weapons range, track enemy movement (radar, optical), shoot missiles (or suicide autonomnous aircraft) and dispatch marines in transports. it could defend itself by counter-missiles and evading the missiles, shells...

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >outside effective weapon range
                99.99% certain to be outside the range of anything you'd call a "fighter", unless you define fighter as something that is basically a warship with their own nuclear propulsion, just with minimal crew. Making it warship vs warship battle with just an oversized support ship.

                >evading missiles, shells
                You ain't going to evade missiles with spaceship that are far heavier. Even shells can be given rudimentary course-correction. At then there's lasers.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >deploying space marines with melee weapons who fight to take control of the critical system to force a surrender
              And trying to get there before the command or engineering of the system blow their reactor.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Always wondered why they didn't just torch the computers. Taking a blowtorch to a hard drive will destroy anything on it as surely as any nuke and it wouldn't be unreasonable to strap thermite charges to the server racks. You can then zero out the RAM before cutting the power. By the time they get any of those chips see a forensics lab you'd need a quantum physicist to get any data out of them.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Always wondered why they didn't just torch the computers
                There's way more useful stuff on board than just the servers. The whole ship contains technology that is more advanced than Earth's.
                Also I think computing isn't entirely centralised in The Expanse, the main workstation in the Tachi/Rocinante seemed to be independent of a lot of other ship systems though there's clearly a ship-wide network or cloud or something.

                Even just capturing officers alive would be a significant threat to security, they'd be made to talk eventually and they're bound to know secret stuff.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                In the context I was making, they are deploying marines because NO ONE WANT/CAN BLOW UP STUFF without causing chain of debris that destroy all the infrastructure or even themselves.

                Ignore The Expanse as a setting because it have magic-level propulsion which would change everything.
                See

                https://i.imgur.com/wm3y7hu.png

                [...]
                You joke, but by the time we get reactionless engines space warfare becomes ridiculous. Planet Killing KKVs would travel close enough to the speed of light that your warning time would be effectively zero, all but guaranteeing a successful first strike and a 'Dino Killer' level apocalypse on the planets that get hit.

                for what "reactionless thruster" allow.

                You are not going to get boarding action unless something prevent or make suicidal to blow attackers/defender ships.
                Not wanting to deal with the debris of said enemy can be one of those reason.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              You might see a lot of conflict in internal conflicts. Coups, civil wars, and riots for example.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The Enterprise is an exploration craft that is occasionally gang-pressed into combat, and all of its comforts exist to facilitate long-range endurance separated from a space station because it's operating in uncharted territory with zero infrastructure in months' long stretches. It has more in common with the ISS but with thrusters attached than it does something like the Falcon rockets who IIRC don't even have a day's provisions operating in space untended.

          Starfleet used to have shitty spacecraft meant to constantly move in and out of orbit that fit your critique that were basically rockets with warp nacelles glued onto them, but during the Earth-Romulan War they had to be able to operate for months outside of the known part of the galaxy to actually take the fight to the Romulans, prompting them being serviced by vessels that were basically space stations with warp engines strapped to them, and post-war the tenders and combat craft were consolidated into cruisers that eventually led to ships like the Constitution class being conceived, shedding the ability to land on planets entirely because why would you need that when they can park on space docks? Most post TOS ships are built and spend their lifetime in space without ever dipping below a planet's mesosphere.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Star Trek is silly soft-SF with magic level technology.
            Realistic spacecraft would have more to do with a submarine interior, lack of communication included because of light lag.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Aparently Starfleet enlisted bunks can be pretty damn spartan.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >4 meter wide corridors
                >wide bunk
                >certainly some kind of total isolation tech on each bunk
                Sound rather comfy to me.

                Royal Navy bunk for comparison.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Worth reminding just how fragile a realistic spaceship would be.

    Boat have simple damage control because as long as it float it can be restarted or towed back home even if it lose all energy.
    If you lose the engine you just come to a stop and drift slowly, towing isn't too complicated and can be done by anything even with less horse-power.

    With a spaceship you either have the most ridiculous redundancies or you accepted long ago that it and the crew was expendable.
    If a spaceship lose all energy, life-support fail, everyone die.
    If a spaceship lose radiators, you must shutdown reactors or melt the ship.
    If a spaceship lose propulsion, it will not stop, it will pass-by its destination or crash into whatever is on its trajectory.

    If it have some propulsion but it can't align with the center of mass on its own, it's lost. You'd need to be able to detach and reattach the entire propulsion system to save it.
    Even with propulsion and enough propellant left, you also need to retain the ability to control attitude, good fricking luck repairing anything in a thousand tons of metal/propellant tumbling in rotation forever.

    If it can't be saved, there's not many credible solution unless your spaceship is an assembly of multiple spaceships also capable of the same travel and still working.
    You need more than "allies nearby", they either have the same trajectory or need to spend ridiculous amount of propellant to rendez-vous on incredibly wasteful trajectory. You need to get out even if the ship is tumbling around.

    If you still wanted to save the spaceship itself, you'd need a tugship with several time its mass in propellant, the ability to grab it, control its rotation and push it, and a propulsion at least on par with the original ship.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      At the same time, spaceships will have this weird "Zombie" effect where with enough redundancies and damage control a ship could be missing massive chunks and still be semi-functional. Spaceships don't sink and losing atmosphere just means everyone puts on space suits.

      That being said, at a certain point the captain has to order the entire crew into lifeboats or get stranded in the middle of space.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >entire crew into lifeboats or get stranded in the middle of space
        But as said, such "lifeboats" will have to the size and the mass of a fully capable spacecraft.

        It's like evacuating a sinking battleship except the lifeboat need to be 1/4 of the size of the battleship and fully capable of operating alone for weeks, only ditching the weapons.

        Another thing to mention is that spacecraft burn maneuver are critical.
        If a spacecraft thruster fail while they are accelerating or especially decelerating, there won't be time to repair it before you miss the target.
        All you can hope is that you had sacrificed a lot of time and propellant mass to counteract exactly this failure.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >But as said, such "lifeboats" will have to the size and the mass of a fully capable spacecraft.
          No, more like an insulated cryopod with a beacon.
          Probably not true cryo but run the lifesupport at 10-15c to put everyone into controlled hypothermia, the atmosphere at maybe .5 and tweak O2 levels to keep everyone at the higher levels of unconscious.
          Inside, everyone is strapped into acceleration couches and just waiting to be rescued or die.

          I think you could run a boat like that, no more than a life raft, for a few days off reserve power and tanked gas with scrubbers. If it happens in a theatre of battle then they can be captured or rescued by the victor or possibly by the loser's hospital ships.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No, more like an insulated cryopod with a beacon.
            >No
            Assuming it is a possibility and easily activated with that. We stray away from realism.
            From what I know you'll have to genetically rebuild human to make it a possibility. Some animal species can hibernate but mankind never got that genetic or lost it.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Assuming it is a possibility and easily activated with that. We stray away from realism.
              No, what I describe could be done right now with current technology.
              Keeping people cold and barely oxygenated will work fine for "most" people. You'll lose some people from the physical hardship of it but you'll keep more people alive for longer than if you didn't.
              That kind of mathematics of survival could be politically difficult to sell and the research phase is going to be ethically complicated but the technology would work.

              It's not true sci-fi cryostasis, it's controlled hypothermia in a low-oxygen atmosphere. Closer to an induced coma.

              It would be easier to put people in medically induced comas. Just a large dose of ketamine regulated by a medical expert system.

              >It would be easier to put people in medically induced comas. Just a large dose of ketamine regulated by a medical expert system.
              It's pretty close already and while not easier, it's cheaper to run it cold with thin air, no need to maintain a drug supply for it (that keeps being raided by off-duty techs who want to party) or worry about dosage.

              >If you still wanted to save the spaceship itself, you'd need a tugship with several time its mass in propellant
              >chemical or air based propellant
              cope, we're going to have reaction less engines soon

              >reaction less engines soon
              That sounds like cope. I'll believe it when they're in use.

              going into combat i would expect theyd depressurise the ship to prevent explosive decompression

              >depressurise the ship to prevent explosive decompression
              It may be a doctrine decision but I see value in reducing pressure rather than depressurising. It would be useful not to immediately kill anyone that can't find a helmet or punctures their suit. And a low atmosphere will help locate breaches via internal airflow sensors, it could also be used to transport fire-suppressing gases or expanding foam directly to a breach site.
              Anyway, I'm not sure you'd actually get explosive decompression very often, it's rare in commercial aircraft and I think when it happens, it's more to do with speed in atmosphere than the pressure differential.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Give the crew about an hour's warning and then flood the halls with CO2. Nitrogen is less toxic but we don't notice it as easily. Having outside pressure also means you're wearing a giant human shaped plastic bag rather than a human shaped inflated baloon.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                if heating fails you will be buried in co2 snow 😛

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Acceptable. If anything, it'll help you sort the CO2 from the breathable gasses and who doesn't love a dry snowball fight?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >No, what I describe could be done right now with current technology.
                >controlled hypothermia
                Not that I know of. Hypothermia is deadly and we only survive because our body is straining hard to keep our organ heated. If the brain is cooled we are just going to end up with braindead people.

                >or flung on a trajectory to who know where
                Unless you're outward bound and missed a slingshot due to damage, you're not getting flung anywhere, nothing that causes survivable damage is going to compare to the thrust of rocket engines.

                Whatever damaged you, you were on mission because there's something there worth attacking and worth protecting. This means you're going to be captured/rescued and it's not as remote as all that because you got there in the first place.

                The rescue vessel wouldn't necessarily need to be crewed, it could autonomously fly in at high thrust, crash stop at paste-making G-force and then pick up liferafts, plug them into life support and head back under human-tolerable thrust.

                I think you misunderstand.
                I didn't meant what hit you change your trajectory.
                I meant that if the damage make you lose propulsion while you were transiting between planet (or decelerating) you are stuck on the trajectory you had and will be flung around in a slingshot of whatever body you were going.
                In those case you cannot be rescued without great effort.
                Alternatively you'll be stuck in a planet orbit, then that's more accessible but only by whoever control the place.

                >unmanned rescue vessel
                It's not the acceleration the problem. It's the incredible quantity of propellant you'll need to do it:
                - intercepting a trajectory that lead nowhere
                - match velocity with the incredible surtax or your speed
                - do it in time (so full brachistochrome)

                Btw there's very good reasons to NOT fight at any place where debris can remain. Your enemy might not be interested in rescuing/capturing you after you've filled their entire orbit with debris. In fact, maybe you should rather look into a self-destruct before they get you.

                >To be rescued you either submit to whoever control the orbit your are stuck
                Which could well be you. Just because your ship was destroyed doesn't mean your side lost the engagement.
                >or your allies need to catch you on a crazy costly trajectory (and do it very fast).
                Do they? Building a lifeboat/escape pod/whatever that can return the mass of a few humans to a retrievable trajectory doesn't take that much delta V. The Tyranny of the Rocket Equation lessens considerably once you're an interplanetary civilisation who can build in space and dont have to ship everything up a gravity well. There's a cost to mission endurance and manoeuvrability of course, but that might not be revelant depending on how the space war meta shakes out. It seems quite shortsighted to assume that the "every team counts" mentality will always apply or that it will always prohibit lifepods.

                >Which could well be you. Just because your ship was destroyed doesn't mean your side lost the engagement.
                Yes but then you didn't need a lifeboat either unless that's what you call any shuttle between ship.

                >The Tyranny of the Rocket Equation lessens
                ...because you can use nuclear propulsion, which is heavy even if it's just fission, complicated and require cooling plus power.
                That's why you are talking of carrying a secondary ship, as part of your ship, hoping it survive the damage.
                Also if it's just a modular part of your ship that detach, then you might as well just invest the propulsion mass into improving your ship redundancy.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It would be easier to put people in medically induced comas. Just a large dose of ketamine regulated by a medical expert system.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >But as said, such "lifeboats" will have to the size and the mass of a fully capable spacecraft.
          Why? Surely there's some value to just staying alive in space for a week or two, even if you don't have independent return capability.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not really, unless you’re close to earth

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Consider the context:
              You were on a mission that take week(s) of travel (being generous).
              Because of damage you are either stuck in a planet orbit, or flung on a trajectory to who know where.

              To be rescued you either submit to whoever control the orbit your are stuck, or your allies need to catch you on a crazy costly trajectory (and do it very fast).
              To survive for any duration you need a really good life support + energy source.
              Assuming this complex lifeboat survived the damage that stranded you. It's not like inflatable sea boat.

              All this put together, you might as well not make a lifeboat and build instead a system that might make the ship last a little longer.

              What if your side wins the battle? What if the enemy accepts your lifepod's surrender and takes you as a prisoner of war? Or what if your ship is literally in low Earth orbit? It's not that unlikely, Earth is the only habitable planet in the known universe.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Covered here

                https://i.imgur.com/4LwW3Gx.jpeg

                >No, what I describe could be done right now with current technology.
                >controlled hypothermia
                Not that I know of. Hypothermia is deadly and we only survive because our body is straining hard to keep our organ heated. If the brain is cooled we are just going to end up with braindead people.

                [...]
                I think you misunderstand.
                I didn't meant what hit you change your trajectory.
                I meant that if the damage make you lose propulsion while you were transiting between planet (or decelerating) you are stuck on the trajectory you had and will be flung around in a slingshot of whatever body you were going.
                In those case you cannot be rescued without great effort.
                Alternatively you'll be stuck in a planet orbit, then that's more accessible but only by whoever control the place.

                >unmanned rescue vessel
                It's not the acceleration the problem. It's the incredible quantity of propellant you'll need to do it:
                - intercepting a trajectory that lead nowhere
                - match velocity with the incredible surtax or your speed
                - do it in time (so full brachistochrome)

                Btw there's very good reasons to NOT fight at any place where debris can remain. Your enemy might not be interested in rescuing/capturing you after you've filled their entire orbit with debris. In fact, maybe you should rather look into a self-destruct before they get you.

                [...]
                >Which could well be you. Just because your ship was destroyed doesn't mean your side lost the engagement.
                Yes but then you didn't need a lifeboat either unless that's what you call any shuttle between ship.

                >The Tyranny of the Rocket Equation lessens
                ...because you can use nuclear propulsion, which is heavy even if it's just fission, complicated and require cooling plus power.
                That's why you are talking of carrying a secondary ship, as part of your ship, hoping it survive the damage.
                Also if it's just a modular part of your ship that detach, then you might as well just invest the propulsion mass into improving your ship redundancy.

                Also you may "win the battle" while losing your propulsion on arrival, therefore being unable to slow down and sent far away.

                I would like to insist that it's a BIG IF to survive a battle in the first place.
                Armoring a spaceship is near impossible and you'd have better chance with hard-kill anti-missile than any form of armor, even against lasers. If your heat radiator are damaged you can't radiate the heat and you lose all power or melt.

                For the enemy, if your ship is only half dead they can't afford to let you keep your main reactor(s). A main reactor can still power many weapons. Even a secondary power source would still be enough to activate and launch missiles unless their systems are completely destroyed.

                >Or what if your ship is literally in low Earth orbit?
                Then they'll be more interested into getting your wreck out of the way before you crash into something with the kinetic equivalent of nukes.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >For the enemy, if your ship is only half dead they can't afford to let you keep your main reactor(s)
                The enemy can raise a white flag out of humanitarian concerns(and pretty much like now be considered a war crime if you use it for foul play) through a standard procedure(give control of their systems, jettisoning ordnance or a simple radio signal).

                Also, it might be enough with destroying enough surface from the radiators to make sure that the only system possibly working is life support, which still might allow for missiles and electronic warfare but if you get into that situation seems ill advised to just start becoming hostile out of nowhere.

                Yes, you might surprise your enemy, but a "surprise" in space might be several hours away and if you are very close the enemy will be on his guard anyway.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You can't exactly raise a white flag mid battle and promise you won't launch your last missiles as you got closer to their defense or if your friends are winning.
                Nor expect to have the time to shoot the radiator just enough to survive the surrender.
                Being harmless is not really far from being dead.
                Even if you were on transit in group, your ally may not have the time to get you out of your wreck as your enemy is launching missiles non-stop to waste your defense, or heating your ships continuously with lasers until you overheat

                You attacked us? You die. As simple as that.
                Don't have room for prisoners anyway. You'll be the example of why you need to surrender sooner next time.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You attacked us? You die. As simple as that.
                In terms of absolute war? Maybe, but it's always an interesting question in warfare how much humanity comes to play when everybody is risking their lives and have to the extremes of morality.

                What is clear is this, if you signal surrender and then don't or you start shooting ships that have surrendered, and not done anything warranting an attack, then the other side will do the same, giving way to a slippery slope to the bottom and situations where things might not be so clear cut with political ramifications(i.e: The sinking of the Lusitania) which is why we ended up with the laws of war and Rules of Engagement. Hence, if we find ourselves in a situation where the enemy can't trust the other side to play nice in any circumstance, taking into account the characteristics of space, there won't be any kind of rescue at all for any spaceship and the crew can only fight to survive.

                But not all wars end up like this, even without laws demanding a specific behavior U-boats sometimes did rescue the victims of their own attacks or at least signaled the allies to come rescue their people, it wouldn't be so far fetched to think that if the enemy does every demand you tell them they are effectively surrendering and trusting you to help them since the other options, specially in space, are... harrowing to say the least.
                >Don't have room for prisoners anyway.
                Prisoners are valuable(although not in every situation) so the crew can accept the discomfort for a long while if it nets them someone like an communications or intelligence officer(is not even about information, propaganda and prisoner exchanges are powerful tools too) even if the life support of a spaceship is limited. And sure, you might not be able to rescue a whole crew, but that's their problem, choose who gets out and let them draw straws on whoever else gets saved, since the other option is all of them dying.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >but that's their problem, choose who gets out and let them draw straws on whoever else gets saved
                And you say I'm not humane?
                You are asking them to kill each others and all the evidence to be saved.

                >absolute war
                If a warship is sunk, you are at war.
                Forget analogy with Today's Earth-bound war, of analogy of wether a spaceship count more as an aircraft or if the real war will be swarm of genocidal missiles and warship are merely police.
                The wreck of a nuclear spaceship would simply be too dangerous to not treat as an act of war. Especially in orbit and melting into radioactive metal because the heat radiator were destroyed.

                Those impact are going to shape warfare. We might even get space-marine boarding ship with swords because it would be utter insanity to have stray bullet cause cascade failures destroying a shipyard and filling the entire orbit you wanted to capture with debris.

                In which case, good luck being rescued from your radioactive wreck as you'll be complice of genocide.

                >U-boat
                Funny you bring that up because during WWII we immediately attacked civilian ship (for carrying ammo) then made Q-ships.
                Recent events have demonstrated that acting like gentle humanist just lead to being unprepared the day you meet a psychopathic space-Tsar who ask survivor to kill each other to have the honor of being rescued (using the evidence he gathered to blackmail the rescue into becoming a spy).
                Frankly, western citizen are such poltroon today they won't mobilize until a family member is killed.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Thinly veiled bump reply
                >You are asking them to kill each others and all the evidence to be saved.
                If my spaceship has life support for 50 people but can up that number to 55 but there are 10 survivors, the inhumane thing would be to simply say, no frick off, since 5 is better that 0, although it would be extremely interesting to see how such a thing could be codified into law, even outside warfare.
                >Especially in orbit and melting into radioactive metal because the heat radiator were destroyed.
                Unless that spaceship was in some low orbit with a projection of deorbiting in less than ten years, I wouldn't worry about it, it would be another piece of space debris, with a reactor a bit hot(if the radiators don't work the reactor can't work either, leaving only some leftover radioactive material that is a problem for any surviving crew and no one else's)
                > We might even get space-marine boarding ship with swords
                It's not the first time I have seen this argument but... what about ablative rounds? Unless the shell is made out of 5 mm of aluminum the impact itself is already damaging enough to human bodies, and even so, aren't there other more modern solutions than just going medieval on space people?
                >Recent events have demonstrated that acting like gentle humanist just lead to being unprepared the day you meet a psychopathic
                And being a mindless butthole ends up constraining the freedom of your military to operate or even end up escalating a conflict that wouldn't have to have escalated in the first place. Because, sure, you can put in your ROEs that an enemy ship is dangerous until it doesn't have any thermal signature, until you start hitting logistic fleets with civilians on them, which legally might be military targets(or might not, this is when it gets really blurry sometimes) but the people inside sometimes aren't even from the same country, and even if you say "well maybe they shouldn't have put themselves in harm's way!" that's not what people will say.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Your pic reminded me Gundam had a neutra colony, with physical seal on weapons.

                Let's just assume international laws will remain the same on the matter.
                https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/surrender
                It's all political anyway.
                If you consider your enemy trustworthy (lol) then both side would decide what count as a surrender.
                If the other side is not trustworthy, shoot at will.
                You cannot afford to lower your guard, have your defense blown up in a feign, then have the next wave of attackers convince your population you attacked first through infowar.

                Wether they can take prisoner ...no obligation to take risk, and well.
                I don't want to live in a country where we feel obligation for people who tried to kill us.

                >I wouldn't worry about it, it would be another piece of space debris
                A HUGE pile of future debris that's might be in rotation and spewing more debris continually, with a nuclear reactor that cannot cool down anymore, either because it's Fission reaction, or because it's Fusion but the heat circulation no longer work.

                >what about ablative rounds?
                A bullet is a bullet and the danger with space debris is that it will cross other orbits with a relative speed superior to current anti-tank bullet.

                >aren't there other more modern solutions than just going medieval on space people?
                Could always imagine some magnetic harpoons with a wire to bring them back.
                That or plain lasers as they would quickly become safer if not focused.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >A HUGE pile of future debris that's might be in rotation and spewing more debris continually, with a nuclear reactor that cannot cool down anymore
                You can't sustain a nuclear chain reaction if your nuclear fuel is expanding into a cloud of debris. If the nuclear reactor is still able to produce heat, that necessarily means that it's still in a single piece, and should be quite easy to track.
                Also, even a large debris cloud isn't impossible to track, just harder. You need better telescopes and more computation power, but in a setting where there are ship-to-ship space battles, it seems like a safe assumption that there would have been some advancements in other areas as well.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That pic of you is ironic posting right?

                >You can't sustain a nuclear chain reaction if your nuclear fuel is expanding into a cloud of debris.
                So instead of a nuclear (fission) reactor melting and eventually blowing into a radioactive cloud of debris
                You have already a radioactive cloud of debris.
                It does save us time.

                Futuristic ability to track every single <1mm debris in real time is irrelevant if we cannot solve the problem, which here would require magical level technology.

                Consider the following:
                You had shipyard, spacedock, space industries.
                War happen, the one warship is now a debris field...
                ...that destroy turn the shipyard, spacedock, space industries into more debris.
                This is the basis of the Kessler effect and the only reason we will probably it is that sane people will regulate stuff and position the infrastructure where a Kessler effect can be minimized or can't even start (Lagrange point look like good place).

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >magical level technology
                Like what? The magical ability to place your telecom satellites and space stations on an orbit that doesn't have a dangerous amount of debris? Tracking a huge number of very small objects is a difficult problem, but I don't see any reason why it would be unsolvable.
                >Lagrange point look like good place
                Really? I'd have expected them to be quite bad in terms of debris, since orbits near them tend to be very stable. L4 and L5 at least. If low Earth orbit gets filled with debris, in the worst case you can just wait a hundred years for it to fall into the atmosphere. Not good for the space economy, sure, but also not a permanent problem.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The "magical level technology" is about SOLVING the problem.
                As of now, I know of no way to clean an orbit of debris that's not beyond costly&difficult.

                >Like what? The magical ability to place your telecom satellites and space stations on an orbit that doesn't have a dangerous amount of debris?
                That's not SOLVING the problem of having a (spinning) wreck spewing radioactive debris on an orbit you'd ideally use.
                Also debris can be flung into other orbits.

                Moving satellites will have repercussion, even if we talk about future-tech that don't need to be in low altitude for latency or don't need a constellation to offer GPS service.
                Moving a shipyard is going to be vastly more complicated, if even possible, in time.
                If you need to launch from the surface, you'll have to cross orbits full of debris, time your launch in consequences.
                ...etc

                You say "bad for economy" but the worst case (Kessler effect) kill the economy for hundreds years, if not millennia on the higher orbits. And you probably don't want your economy at 50% for hundred of years if an enemy is trying to kill/conquer you.

                Put all these together and you'll start wondering if high-intensity space war will be about threatening to use unsafe setting on a communication laser.

                >Lagrange point & space debris
                Even in the stable ones a debris ejected too fast will not remain.
                Those that do remain should have a much lower relative velocity, easier to deal with.
                Not being in an orbit should also make collisions take far more time, unlike orbits where there's risk(s) every orbital period.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Recent events have demonstrated that acting like gentle humanist just lead to being unprepared
                This stupid fricking line of logic is the reason the US empire is teetering on the brink. Everyone has realized we're run by psychopathic buttholes and no linger gives us the benefit of the doubt becUse we abuse it too much. WE are the space-tsar in your anology.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >the reason the US empire is teetering on the brink. Everyone has realized we're run by psychopathic buttholes and no linger gives us the benefit of the doubt
                Eh, this was way more true in the 80s and 90s where if you have some oil somewhere, you really had to find some friends fast or be looking at some US intervention into your civil disorder that they caused in the first place.

                These days, the US has bigger fish to fry and isn't bullying thirdies nearly as much as they used to. They've realised that their enemies will do that happily anyway and they can sit back and wait to be invited in as friends.

                Biden is also not psychopathic the way that Reagan, Bush and maybe Clinton were and not on the same scale as Trump at all.

                Biden and Obama redeemed the US's reputation among the rest of the world, you maybe can't see this from inside but it's really a totally different attitude to burgers today than it was before Obama's first term.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Biden is also not psychopathic
                holy shit moron-kun

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Thanks for Correcting The Record
                >$0.03 has been deposited in your account.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You can't exactly raise a white flag mid battle and promise you won't launch your last missiles as you got closer to their defense or if your friends are winning.
                Nor expect to have the time to shoot the radiator just enough to survive the surrender.
                Being harmless is not really far from being dead.
                Even if you were on transit in group, your ally may not have the time to get you out of your wreck as your enemy is launching missiles non-stop to waste your defense, or heating your ships continuously with lasers until you overheat

                You attacked us? You die. As simple as that.
                Don't have room for prisoners anyway. You'll be the example of why you need to surrender sooner next time.

                https://i.imgur.com/bhbWajN.jpeg

                >but that's their problem, choose who gets out and let them draw straws on whoever else gets saved
                And you say I'm not humane?
                You are asking them to kill each others and all the evidence to be saved.

                >absolute war
                If a warship is sunk, you are at war.
                Forget analogy with Today's Earth-bound war, of analogy of wether a spaceship count more as an aircraft or if the real war will be swarm of genocidal missiles and warship are merely police.
                The wreck of a nuclear spaceship would simply be too dangerous to not treat as an act of war. Especially in orbit and melting into radioactive metal because the heat radiator were destroyed.

                Those impact are going to shape warfare. We might even get space-marine boarding ship with swords because it would be utter insanity to have stray bullet cause cascade failures destroying a shipyard and filling the entire orbit you wanted to capture with debris.

                In which case, good luck being rescued from your radioactive wreck as you'll be complice of genocide.

                >U-boat
                Funny you bring that up because during WWII we immediately attacked civilian ship (for carrying ammo) then made Q-ships.
                Recent events have demonstrated that acting like gentle humanist just lead to being unprepared the day you meet a psychopathic space-Tsar who ask survivor to kill each other to have the honor of being rescued (using the evidence he gathered to blackmail the rescue into becoming a spy).
                Frankly, western citizen are such poltroon today they won't mobilize until a family member is killed.

                >It's unrealistic to expect soldiers to accept an injured soldier's surrender, they could blow them up with a hidden grenade or shoot them at the last second!
                You typed up a lot of words that could be summarized as "I'm an edgy moron"

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Consider the context:
            You were on a mission that take week(s) of travel (being generous).
            Because of damage you are either stuck in a planet orbit, or flung on a trajectory to who know where.

            To be rescued you either submit to whoever control the orbit your are stuck, or your allies need to catch you on a crazy costly trajectory (and do it very fast).
            To survive for any duration you need a really good life support + energy source.
            Assuming this complex lifeboat survived the damage that stranded you. It's not like inflatable sea boat.

            All this put together, you might as well not make a lifeboat and build instead a system that might make the ship last a little longer.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >or flung on a trajectory to who know where
              Unless you're outward bound and missed a slingshot due to damage, you're not getting flung anywhere, nothing that causes survivable damage is going to compare to the thrust of rocket engines.

              Whatever damaged you, you were on mission because there's something there worth attacking and worth protecting. This means you're going to be captured/rescued and it's not as remote as all that because you got there in the first place.

              The rescue vessel wouldn't necessarily need to be crewed, it could autonomously fly in at high thrust, crash stop at paste-making G-force and then pick up liferafts, plug them into life support and head back under human-tolerable thrust.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >To be rescued you either submit to whoever control the orbit your are stuck
              Which could well be you. Just because your ship was destroyed doesn't mean your side lost the engagement.
              >or your allies need to catch you on a crazy costly trajectory (and do it very fast).
              Do they? Building a lifeboat/escape pod/whatever that can return the mass of a few humans to a retrievable trajectory doesn't take that much delta V. The Tyranny of the Rocket Equation lessens considerably once you're an interplanetary civilisation who can build in space and dont have to ship everything up a gravity well. There's a cost to mission endurance and manoeuvrability of course, but that might not be revelant depending on how the space war meta shakes out. It seems quite shortsighted to assume that the "every team counts" mentality will always apply or that it will always prohibit lifepods.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                *every gram counts. That'll teach me for phoneposting.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's the vacuum of space, if stellar shipyards are a thing, there is no reason not to make ships have multiple and redundant bulkheads, turtle ships if you will...

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >there is no reason not to make ships have multiple and redundant bulkheads
        MASS
        It cut drastically in your dV budget.

        Chose:
        A) a spaceship with the most optimized systems which should hopefully work until the next refit
        B) a spaceship with plenty of redundancy, but it may fail the mission because the extra mass reduce its performance

        Pro tips: Both can be equally needed.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Then why not both asks the little Mexican girl from 2010

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >If you still wanted to save the spaceship itself, you'd need a tugship with several time its mass in propellant
      >chemical or air based propellant
      cope, we're going to have reaction less engines soon

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Or at least 2000+ Specific Impulse engines.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Sure a few centuries is soon in space terms

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >reaction less engines soon
        That change everything then!
        Any war will be a volley of easy relativistic planetkiller.
        No one will be allowed either to fly cargoship that can be turned into planetkiller missiles.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >No one will be allowed either to fly cargoship that can be turned into planetkiller missiles.
          SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            In the chemical warfare thread currently up, there's a post about how a 1928 Hamburg milsurp store had a leak that distributed phosgene gas and killed 10 people.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I had this happen to me constantly in stellaris once, terrorists kept crashing freighters into a planet I was occupying and permanently kept the population down as a result

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Full speed ahead, brother. Inshallah.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              https://i.imgur.com/RkP11Vv.png

              Full speed ahead, brother. Inshallah.

              You joke, but by the time we get reactionless engines space warfare becomes ridiculous. Planet Killing KKVs would travel close enough to the speed of light that your warning time would be effectively zero, all but guaranteeing a successful first strike and a 'Dino Killer' level apocalypse on the planets that get hit.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If you can accelerate a fully fuelled space shuttle to 0.3c, it'd also be pretty easy to expand outside your planet, and somewhat possible even outside your solar system. Build a couple hundred thousand habitats in solar orbit, they'll be fine even if Earth gets hit with a planet killer.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous
              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >pic
                The nihilism is funny but being social-darwinist isn't a good or even a working survival strategy.

                Someone who cannot work with someone different from himself and draw arbitrary lines over who is forever with/against him, isn't going to be able to work with other member of his own "species".
                like:
                "Hi Bob! How is the day?"
                "You may be planning to kill me or get any advantage over me! I must kill you first!"

                The strategy also do not work if the "species" you try to destroy have already digitalized itself and can survive your first strike.
                And if you are a turbo-speciest who refuse modifying your "species" body you'll be at a total disadvantage.

                To finish the game theory analysis,
                Both side attacking first result in both side losing.
                You attacking first result in a certainty of being killed by any civilization you didn't knew were already multi-planet, stronger than you and looking at you.
                Not attacking may result in you being killed but do not give a reason to kill you.
                Both side not attacking result in a potentially good relationship.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Eh if we have those capabilities then we have the capabilities to shoot those things down. If you're going to uparmor a ship to be able to withstand whatever fire will be coming at it then you may as well stick some gun on it and turn it into a permanent naval ship. Only reason terrorists in my stellaris game got away with it so much is because they worked with cartels and used civilian shipping as a disguise to get the ship close to the planet, usually within the atmosphere already when they maneuver to crash.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Eh if we have those capabilities then we have the capabilities to shoot those things down.
                NTA but no, every capabilities isn't it's own counter.

                The ability to accelerate to near lightspeed for example, reduce the time the target have to SEE you, decrease the time you have to react, while increasing exponentially the effort you need to truly cancel the projectile destructive force.

                At relativistic speed, destroying half of the projectile isn't going to deflect it and its kinetic power will still be nuke-level.

                >stellaris game
                It's time anon stop to be surprised a game make analogy that wouldn't actually work IRL

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I'm sure that there are special measures that can be taken, but it really depends on the spaceship.
      >DeltaV budgets are tight? Yeah, you are fricked, we can't carry any spare radiators to make a makeshift refuge in whatever compartment hasn't been turned into gruyere cheese, for example
      >How efficient is life support? If it's a completely closed ecological system as long as the nuclear reactor works and the surrounding equipment isn't too much damaged you are limited by human psychology and lifespan, if not, any rescue ship is going to take longer than your provisions, so you are fricked
      >If the spaceship is a sort of orbital guard near a habitable planet/space station, then escape pods are as much of a viable solution as simply relying on rescue services taking less than a few days getting there
      >Are you in a hostile zone? Your spaceship might be tumbling around and trying to use whatever surviving thrusters to stabilize it might give away to your enemies that there is someone alive in there, meaning that you might die out of having to delay important repairs out of fear of being turned into a prisoner of war(do we make it a warcrime shooting at half destroyed spaceships? Mmmn...)

      Space is big and lonely, cyanide capsules might become far more prevalent than anyone might have expected.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Space is big and lonely, cyanide capsules might become far more prevalent than anyone might have expected.
        I'll take the less painful option, thank you.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >I'll take the less painful option
          There are issues with suicide pills.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why is half of lefty Reddit humor just "HAHA I WANT TO KILL MYSELF SO BAD, DON'T YOU!? I HAVE NOTHING TO LIVE FOR AND MY FAMILY HATE ME HAHA!!!"
            IS this why they're all antigun? They just assume that given the opportunity they would hurt themselves and/or others and think everyone else will do the same?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Why is half of lefty Reddit humor
              It's way beyond Reddit and that's actually a pretty old comic.
              It's from Pictures for Sad Children which was a macabre absurdist nihilism/depression comic that ended a decade ago.

              It was pretty good in its time, it kind of meshed with /b/ inanity and edginess so it was fairly popular around the chan.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >IS this why they're all antigun?
              No, that's because they don't like school shootings or a society where you have to be able to defend yourself at all times. Most of /k/ has other priorities of course but the antigun stance is rational to most of those that hold it.

              >They just assume that given the opportunity they would hurt themselves and/or others and think everyone else will do the same?
              Maybe in a "call of the void" sense but not really no, they're two separate concepts I think.

              The gun control is about safety from hostile actors, mass shootings and reducing both police and criminal shootings. You *should* be able to acknowledge those as legitimate concerns even if you rate those concerns lower than your own freedom to bear arms, of course.

              The suicidal stuff is just a kind of despair related to housing prices, the stagnation of wages that's basically reduced everyone to near poverty levels relative to housing and a lot of other expenses and maybe some millenial-like ennui where people are burnt out by the multiple world crises unfolding in their lifetime.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >reddit spacing
                >antigun opinion
                >justifying reddit homosexualry
                good bait, 5/10 it will get replies.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You will die in a FEMA camp

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >IS this why they're all antigun? They just assume that given the opportunity they would hurt themselves and/or others and think everyone else will do the same?
            Probably not entirely, but yeah, it's definitely a factor. Pic related from https://www.thestranger.com/features/2017/11/22/25575460/three-days-after-the-deadliest-shooting-in-modern-american-history-i-fired-a-handgun-for-the-first-time

            I'm skeptical of the notion of "projection" as a defense mechanism (to say nothing of its overuse in casual discussion, where it's just a longer way to say "no u"), but there's an underlying truth in that our knowledge of ourselves undeniably colors our assumptions about the millions of strangers we share a city or state with.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    DAMAGE CONTROL?! Leave it to me.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You will wear a pressurized suit in space combat even while in a ship.
    >that will hinder combat effectiveness
    Hardly. If we are doing space battles one can imagine very slim suits, even more slim than the next generation suits being used currently and in development. You never hear about combat performance dropping because everyone dons anti-flash gear.
    Wearing a suit can be very beneficial. It could help you survive a decompression ejection. It could protect you from fires in an oxygen rich environment.
    I'll also go scifi here and point out a vented ship is of less risk to sonic weapons, ala Battle of Darkness

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Just like The Expanse, parts flying off, ship systems going down. Amos having to risk his butthole trying to get ship systems back online before everyone dies.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Mobile Suit Gundam of all things had a really cool damage control system for the MC’s ship, when there was a hull breach these balls would get released and dragged by the escaping air to the site where they would latch onto the edge and start to harden u til enough built up to block it

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Unicorn had everybody on ship getting into pressure suits when combat is expected. They show emergency bulkheads being deployed. And they show temporary repairs after battles.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Huh, that's very blood-clotting like design. Neat.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I prefer the gundam reentry comdom

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Unicorn had everybody on ship getting into pressure suits when combat is expected. They show emergency bulkheads being deployed. And they show temporary repairs after battles.

      UC stuff in general has surprisingly decent discipline when it comes to having ship crews get suited up for battle, people patching up suit punctures and helmet cracks, and for realistically portraying how oxygen deprivation fricks up people hard.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        UC, and most of the AUs that borrow the approach, annoy me for having operators suit up but not actually depressurising the ships. It makes sense to have a ship condition where vital gear is worn and carried in case of danger but if outright entering combat, everyone should be switching to internal life support and everything depressurised to minimise damage. Who knows, ships might even survive to a second shot instead of dying the moment an MS looks at them.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Eh, you might be able to justify it as keeping air around for verbal communication since minkovsky particle bullshit makes radio unreliable and laser-based communication doesn't really work inside a vehicle.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Wireless comms local to within a hull should probably be doable even with minovsky particles. Just have relays and repeaters if man-scale ones aren't quite enough grunt on their own.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Depressurizing the ship wouldn't do much. Frankly, the depressurization only occasionally dragged someone into space because they weren't strapped down and right next to a hull breach. It never led to the loss of an entire ship. That was usually due to a hit the the reactor by a charged particle beam.

          Beyond that, portable oxygen supplies are usually pretty limited. You'd have anywhere from a few minutes to an hour of work before you'd need to swap bottles. It's also a lot harder to deal with suit breaches and injuries without air pressure. Battles in UC gundam can also last hours if not days meaning the crew would need to eat and shit in the middle of battle.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          With the kind of weapon used in UC Gundam depressurizing wouldn't make a difference.
          Also, most of their equipment is made of explodium.
          Shot a MS arm? Explode.

          Eh, you might be able to justify it as keeping air around for verbal communication since minkovsky particle bullshit makes radio unreliable and laser-based communication doesn't really work inside a vehicle.

          Wireless comms local to within a hull should probably be doable even with minovsky particles. Just have relays and repeaters if man-scale ones aren't quite enough grunt on their own.

          So far series didn't make Jamming that strong when they are close by, it is more a matter of plot and direction.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    lol the DEI is strong in this one they put a woman there

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What would damage control look like for a spaceship?
    avoiding getting hit

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Y'know, every fighting force in history has tried that. Never seems to stick.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Apollo 13 and the Mir fire are our best examples

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So I figure that you'd cross train Marines in Damage Control. Marines already need to be well armored and rarely have anything to do in the middle of a battle. Sure, they could board an enemy ship but that's not always plausible never mind a good idea.

    Pic...sorta related?

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Honestly it's going to be mainly a bunch of electricians and a few plumbers repairing wiring and pipes.
    If you are expecting combat you are going to have everyone in pressure suits so dealing with the hull that only holds 14psi max and 5psi in most modern spacecraft isn't going to be a big deal, slap some tape on it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      going into combat i would expect theyd depressurise the ship to prevent explosive decompression

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    automated probably for basic shit like pressurized areas.you'd release some kind of an aerosol or gel balls that will block off small holes causing atmosphere leaks.

    when things are more calm you'd collect loose internal debris which can hit stuff when the spacecraft is maneuvering. weld/seal holed in air,fuel lines that were damaged and so on

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Some of the damage from debris floating around would be based on how far it travelled so closing compartments, even with quite light doors, would limit that. This also mitigates breaches too.
      Internal netting that could be deployed could catch debris too, it wouldn't take much to throw a net over a tool bench or something. A workshop or engineering space could have deployable nets that partition the space and prevent loose tools from floating around.
      What works for loose tools also works for fragmentation etc.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        when you expect to go into battle you depressurize all compartments to prevent explosive decompression damage in case of a breach but in case one does occur i'd think the most obvious solution would be something like airbags inflating inside said compartments (say with nitrogen so they would not feed fires ) and pinning down any piece of debris floating around between the bags so that if it does bounce around it has no room to accelerate. for example a loose drill that has 5 meters to accelerate (when the spacecraft accelerates) can do a lot of damage where's if it's held in the corner by airbags (which deploy after damage to the compartment) it can only move 0.5m and cant do much damage.

        and yes where possible having nets and ropes and keeping everything secured to the frame is important.

        i'd think spacecraft would be very resilient to gunfire / missile shrapnel as long as it doesnt hit vitals like fuel lines,nozzles,pumps,fuel tanks,batteries,computers and many of these would have redundancies. like any modern manned spacecraft (dragon,soyuz....) have 2-3 computers, 2-3 independent rocket nozzle systems, 2-3 independent fuel lines and so on.

        i'd expect a military spacecraft to be 'taken out' in a fight most likely by damage to the main fuel tank/tanks or to sensors (telescope,radar/lidar). these are the two things which have to be somewhat big to be any good, you cant have too many redundancies for and not hurt performance and you cant fight without.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In BSG they do attempt to emulate some aspects of damage control.

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Now I'm just waiting for someone to tell me that this is just some standard practice in airlines and that there is a very good explanation about why wings seem ductaped... right?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >this is just some standard practice in airlines
        Yeah, kind of.

        > and that there is a very good explanation about why wings seem ductaped... right?
        It's not duct tape, it's speed tape.
        Basically aviation rated duct tape, not quite the same materials but works roughly the same but survives high speed environments like plane wings.
        There's regulations on how much you can use on surface damage before you have to just ground the plane.
        It's used for spot repairs that would affect airflow or you don't want them to get worse but they aren't a structural risk by themselves.

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Space is fake and gay. The Americans and soviets lied about sending Astro(turf)naughts into space. Most of them either died in the atmosphere or they filmed it in studio with the help of Andrei Tarkovsky and Stanley Kubrick.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Meds. Now.

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Realistically if you're talking about interplanetary wars it'd make more sense to send a small nuke at them as fast as possible and hope for the best. Having combat spaceships without shields would just end in whoever sees who first on the sensors getting the kill from 1000+ km away

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    plates welded in place with foam

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I would expect spray foam sealant to be a common way of dealing with breaches. Combat internal atmosphere pressures would probably be extremely low with crew wearing pressure suits.

  27. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Something that people don't mention is what type of scenarios armed spacecraft would be used in and their delta V. Seems like everyone comes at it from different angles.
    Chances are in the near future delta v will be pretty limited so spacecraft won't just be floating around doing whatever like what ships do on earth.
    My hypothesis is that every ship will be a highly automated drone carrier that will seldom get directly attacked and thus won't have much crew compared to navel vessels. Damage control should also be highly automated with robots. Companies will have patrol craft hopping from outpost to outpost in the asteroid belt and Earth will have a few in orbit defending against asteroids and bad actors. Earth will also use them to keep control of Martian colonies. So they can be used as a sort of air support if one nations colony decides to attack another.

  28. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Mostly, containment and rerouting. Blow out panels can keep fuel and ammo from tearing the ship in half and you can shut bulkheads and cut oxygen/oxidizer lines to stop fires. The real issue is when you start losing systems like life support, power, and fuel. Lose any one of those and you're not going home.

    Naturally, what you want to do is include redundancy and because more weight=expodentially more fuel you also can't afford spares just sitting around in cargo. What you do is run multiple systems in parallel. 3 reactors, 6 fuel tanks,12 engines, 19 life support generators, all capable of cross connecting on the fly. Naturally, this is pretty complex so a good part of Damage Control would be rerouting fuel, air, and power through a Labyrinth of alternate routings and redundant junctions.

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