What do you think Space Warfare will actually be like? Thread

	Posts
What do you think Space Warfare will actually be like? (Forums : Cosmos : What do you think Space Warfare will actually be like?)	Post Reply
Thread Options	1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rafenrazer Concept artist	Sep 1 2009, 11:20am Anchor
Chances are space warfare will happen localy (within close orbit of large celestial bodies) as open space isnt fun. Nor is there anything worth fighting over (resources or chokepoints ect.) spaceships will likely be speacilised in either landing men on celestial bodies or protecting and destroying other ships. The most feasible weapon in space in my mind would be a solid expanding pig iron guided missle to be lauched from a railgun, it would have high velicoity, be guided to compinsate for enemy movment over such vast distances and lauched in large numbers. The reason being that most images of targets will be seconds if not minutes old (see light), so a targets actual positions will be different from those seen. Chances are some shots will miss (dumb weapons e.g lasers) or be intercepted.
robtai	Sep 28 2009, 7:26am Anchor
I doubt space warfare will be something that we see in games or on TV especially not at the moment. I reckon it would involve nuclear energy and nuclear weaponry. Pretty sure lasers would be used, they are already being used today in the missile defense system and wherever else. Doubt we would use actually bullets that would be quite strange, imagine how close you would have to get in order to shoot. Would probably use like plasma or something... who knows, but interesting.
Assaultman67	Sep 28 2009, 10:34am Anchor
robtai wrote:... Doubt we would use actually bullets that would be quite strange, imagine how close you would have to get in order to shoot. Would probably use like plasma or something... who knows, but interesting. not as close as you would think (less than say ... 10 miles) ... however you would have to spray alot of them to compensate for accuracy ... Edited by: Assaultman67
O N L I N E Handgun_Hero Vietnam \| Glory Obscured Beta Tester	Sep 28 2009, 4:43pm Anchor
I think that it will most definitely involve lasers. Firing at light speed with no recoil, they are by far the most accurate and most highest velocity weapons around. -- Can you tell me doctor why I still can't get to sleep? The night time's just a jungle dark and a barking M16. What's this rash that comes and goes can you tell me what it means? God help me, I was only 19.
Gibberstein Generic Coder Type Thing	Sep 28 2009, 5:23pm Anchor
Sod lasers, accelerate mass to near-light speed instead. Almost as quick travelling from source to target, and a lot more damaging. @Rafenrazer I agree on the whole, but you are forgetting cases like pursuit and interception. If there's someone you don't want running free you don't just let them run and hope you get them if they come back, you engage them on the run. Similarly, if you have intelligence saying where a hostile force are approaching from you probably want to intercept away from inhabited and/or strategically important locations and hit them before they get reach their target - it's just safer than waiting for them to arrive and hoping you can contain them on your last line of defence. -- "lets say Portal is a puzzle game, so its a rehash of Tetris" - Wraiyth points out the craziness of stereotyping games by their genre
robtai	Sep 28 2009, 8:21pm Anchor
Gibberstein wrote:Sod lasers, accelerate mass to near-light speed instead. Almost as quick travelling from source to target, and a lot more damaging. @Rafenrazer I agree on the whole, but you are forgetting cases like pursuit and interception. If there's someone you don't want running free you don't just let them run and hope you get them if they come back, you engage them on the run. Similarly, if you have intelligence saying where a hostile force are approaching from you probably want to intercept away from inhabited and/or strategically important locations and hit them before they get reach their target - it's just safer than waiting for them to arrive and hoping you can contain them on your last line of defence. Isnt that laser?
BoredGunman	Sep 28 2009, 8:45pm Anchor
Gotta imagine just how much heat the hull can take if your using lasers. They're made to withstand the amount of heat buildt-up from re-entering the atmosphere. And if lasers are effective, since with the technology nowadays that can send rockets to hit a moving target miles away with pinpoint accuracy, why would there be any chase? The laser beam would only need to be focused long enough with auto tracking to melt a hole through the hull
N0dachi	Sep 29 2009, 2:50am Anchor
robtai wrote: Gibberstein wrote:Sod lasers, accelerate mass to near-light speed instead. Almost as quick travelling from source to target, and a lot more damaging. @Rafenrazer I agree on the whole, but you are forgetting cases like pursuit and interception. If there's someone you don't want running free you don't just let them run and hope you get them if they come back, you engage them on the run. Similarly, if you have intelligence saying where a hostile force are approaching from you probably want to intercept away from inhabited and/or strategically important locations and hit them before they get reach their target - it's just safer than waiting for them to arrive and hoping you can contain them on your last line of defence. Isnt that laser? No its a particle beam, much more destructive then a mere laser.
Gibberstein Generic Coder Type Thing	Sep 29 2009, 3:08am Anchor
@Rafenrazer No. Roughly speaking, a laser is a very powerful, focused torch - pure light. A chunk of metal is still a chunk of metal no matter how fast you get it moving @BoredGunman I'd imagine the hull would take a very long time to heat to failure point, especially if said hull is constantly rolling and turning so you can't focus on the same place for the whole time. You've also got to account for lag here - yeah, lag, just like your online FPS, but this time due to the time required for the light to reach you from your target, and your laser light to then reach them. It won't be much, but it would be enough to prevent a perfect prediction if you have any kind of evasive action going on. Again, mass driving for the win - it might be a bit slower, so slightly harder to hit with , but throw sufficient weight and speed behind your projectile and one hit becomes a serious issue. As for rockets, remember they achieve the accuracy by constantly adjusting their flight. It's easier to adjust to hit a target in-flight than it is to be spot-on from the start. -- "lets say Portal is a puzzle game, so its a rehash of Tetris" - Wraiyth points out the craziness of stereotyping games by their genre
p0rt mincemeat n onions	Sep 29 2009, 4:36am Anchor
blast a projectile like a tank using a high powered hydralic, which fires roughly 30,000 kph, use ion thrust to maintain velocity, fire 1 in space with no forces and friction, the projectile would probaly be near lightspeed Edited by: p0rt -- quake 4 militia rCon 1.7 mod - repacked into pk4s with dds images => point release 1.4.2, both sp/mp - new ai tacticles /physics/weapon settings/huds/fx, adds full multi-position mp vehicles, mp weapon/vehicle flashlights, fp guided projectiles, playerview bloodsplashes, mp model specific lipsynced pain/voice taunts, view frag leader/teambase with salute etc emotes at the end of mp games, 3 mp gametypes - reactor!lastman standing!invisibility, mp sfx - groundshakes!nightmare etc sp ai hearing, and much more and tweaks. no models or maps, just cyber q4 fragfest download/full info
O N L I N E Handgun_Hero Vietnam \| Glory Obscured Beta Tester	Sep 29 2009, 5:54am Anchor
That's actually a good point. With space there is no forces or friction. If a rocket were to be fired it will keep on going and won't lose thrust or lift as it has no drag or weight to stop it from going... -- Can you tell me doctor why I still can't get to sleep? The night time's just a jungle dark and a barking M16. What's this rash that comes and goes can you tell me what it means? God help me, I was only 19.
robtai	Sep 29 2009, 6:27am Anchor
Gibberstein wrote:@Rafenrazer No. Roughly speaking, a laser is a very powerful, focused torch - pure light. A chunk of metal is still a chunk of metal no matter how fast you get it moving @BoredGunman I'd imagine the hull would take a very long time to heat to failure point, especially if said hull is constantly rolling and turning so you can't focus on the same place for the whole time. You've also got to account for lag here - yeah, lag, just like your online FPS, but this time due to the time required for the light to reach you from your target, and your laser light to then reach them. It won't be much, but it would be enough to prevent a perfect prediction if you have any kind of evasive action going on. Again, mass driving for the win - it might be a bit slower, so slightly harder to hit with , but throw sufficient weight and speed behind your projectile and one hit becomes a serious issue. As for rockets, remember they achieve the accuracy by constantly adjusting their flight. It's easier to adjust to hit a target in-flight than it is to be spot-on from the start. Oh I see. Yeah doubt rockets would be that effective considering they would need to travel pretty fast aswell as change direction frequently, like Gibberstein said. The particle beam and laser I resume would be easier to use considering they travel a hell of alot faster, so guiding should be that hard. Was just thinking of the design of the rockets. Considering there is no air or oxygen in space in or to provide lift or in able to turn. So it would need like viffing rockets, like on the F22? Thats the theory anyway Edited by: robtai
N0dachi	Sep 29 2009, 6:53am Anchor
Rockets nowadays always carry the needed oxygen with them, that wouldnt be a problem in space. A problem with any kind of propulsion system, be it a particle beam or a cannon, would be the force hammering the ship. Imagine the Bismarck (German warship during WW2 i assume you know it). Upon firing all main cannons to one side simultaniously the ship jumped back about 2metres. If you were to do that in space your ship would fly around without any control.
robtai	Sep 29 2009, 7:04am Anchor
N0dachi wrote:Rockets nowadays always carry the needed oxygen with them, that wouldnt be a problem in space. A problem with any kind of propulsion system, be it a particle beam or a cannon, would be the force hammering the ship. Imagine the Bismarck (German warship during WW2 i assume you know it). Upon firing all main cannons to one side simultaneously the ship jumped back about 2metres. If you were to do that in space your ship would fly around without any control. Oh yeah I meant guided missiles. I am saying that you cant use the fins on a missile to guide it as it would not do the same in space. The Bismarck of course, that was one of Germany's greatest ships, I take it you are referring to the recoil? yip I know you are right, missiles/rockets dont have much of a recoil though? or you just counter balance the blast by engaging side rockets (computerised)
O N L I N E Handgun_Hero Vietnam \| Glory Obscured Beta Tester	Sep 29 2009, 7:48am Anchor
Yeah, you need jets on all sides to achieve propulsion in space, as seen with the X15. There is no air to create lift (however thrust can take this over) so you need something to push it up. Also no air is there to allow you to use control surfaces to maneuver. -- Can you tell me doctor why I still can't get to sleep? The night time's just a jungle dark and a barking M16. What's this rash that comes and goes can you tell me what it means? God help me, I was only 19.
p0rt mincemeat n onions	Sep 29 2009, 8:18am Anchor
Handgun_Hero wrote:That's actually a good point. With space there is no forces or friction. If a rocket were to be fired it will keep on going and won't lose thrust or lift as it has no drag or weight to stop it from going... a healthy solar storm/wind pushes satalites, hence the theory of using sails to move meteors -- quake 4 militia rCon 1.7 mod - repacked into pk4s with dds images => point release 1.4.2, both sp/mp - new ai tacticles /physics/weapon settings/huds/fx, adds full multi-position mp vehicles, mp weapon/vehicle flashlights, fp guided projectiles, playerview bloodsplashes, mp model specific lipsynced pain/voice taunts, view frag leader/teambase with salute etc emotes at the end of mp games, 3 mp gametypes - reactor!lastman standing!invisibility, mp sfx - groundshakes!nightmare etc sp ai hearing, and much more and tweaks. no models or maps, just cyber q4 fragfest download/full info
Assaultman67	Sep 29 2009, 10:42am Anchor
robtai wrote: N0dachi wrote:Rockets nowadays always carry the needed oxygen with them, that wouldnt be a problem in space. A problem with any kind of propulsion system, be it a particle beam or a cannon, would be the force hammering the ship. Imagine the Bismarck (German warship during WW2 i assume you know it). Upon firing all main cannons to one side simultaneously the ship jumped back about 2metres. If you were to do that in space your ship would fly around without any control. Oh yeah I meant guided missiles. I am saying that you cant use the fins on a missile to guide it as it would not do the same in space. The Bismarck of course, that was one of Germany's greatest ships, I take it you are referring to the recoil? yip I know you are right, missiles/rockets dont have much of a recoil though? or you just counter balance the blast by engaging side rockets (computerised) Missles and rockets don't have much recoil because their acceleration is done in flight ... they are launched at a relatively low speed and they then accelerate using their onboard engine ... so there is little recoil that the ship will recieve ... however it would be harder to make a rocket reach the speed of regular gun based weapondry of similar size because your energy source has to be located on the projectile itself, not within the ship ... which would restrict its ability to accelerate to blinding speeds the rocket would have one main engine with smaller propulsion methods lateral to the main one ... and since their is no atmosphere or friction in space ... the rocket could look like practically anything ... it would no longer have to be shaped the way we stereotypically see it ... -- My links:\|Xfire\|Mars Wars 3\|Steam\| My Mod/Game Watches: \|Lift Mod\|Overgrowth\|Airborn\|MechOverride\|Warm Gun\|Star Trek: Enterprise - TCW\|
Rafenrazer Concept artist	Oct 1 2009, 2:05am Anchor
Realistically lasers can only be used in ranges of about 900,000 km (slightly less than 3 times the distance between the earth and the moon, centre to centre) which gives a time delay of around 4 seconds, probably slightly less. Again i use this to reinforce my idea that space combat will happen within local boundaries of celestial bodies, note that the average orbiting speed of most solar bodies is around 6-9km per second, so four seconds coul mean a potentail miss of 24-36km. Laser hits however could be catastrophic, or the complete oposite if solar panel technology has move far enoguh to absorb such things. In the even that it hasn't heat would build up in the space craft, possibly melting the hull and cooking the crew, remember heat cannot excape as their is no air in space to transfer heat to, in order for energy to escape it has to leave in the form of light. However if hit areas are removed (exploding armour fashion) quickly enough a dangerous heat transfer may not occur, unless the beam was constant (not a small pulse). Solid matter projectiles such as guided missles would always have the velicty of their host craft plus that produced by their engines, though slower than lasers they could be guided, they would almost certainly do more energy transfer, as solid projectiles transfer energy by both kinetic and thermal means. Another reason why open space warfare is unlikey is due to the nature of space travel at the current time, assuming faster than light travel sint possible most ships will have to "slingshot" round celestial bodies, meaning that inhospitable planets with no resouces could become important chokepoints if you want to travel quickly from planet A to plant C via slingshoting yourself to B then C. Again the science of the above is not complete and the math i would have to finalize would likely take me a ridciulosuly long time to caculate and would likey be wrong to some degree or waaay too vauge.
Gibberstein Generic Coder Type Thing	Oct 1 2009, 2:54am Anchor
Something I've maybe missed here, but what would stop them going straight from A->C rather than going A->B->C? -- "lets say Portal is a puzzle game, so its a rehash of Tetris" - Wraiyth points out the craziness of stereotyping games by their genre
Rafenrazer Concept artist	Oct 1 2009, 3:44am Anchor
the extra 4 months of travel time? Too much fuel spent? Assuming a minimum-energy launch windows is the only possible travel option in which you can arrive in combat condition (open space travel requires alot more energy that tradition slingshot travel). Fuel would likely to be limited in space craft even if they used hydrogen, so slingshoting would allow for sufficient fuel reserves to be left over. Again this is all guess work.
Assaultman67	Oct 1 2009, 12:37pm Anchor
Using the planets within the system is more of a conservation of kinetic energy thing ... by using the planets in the system you can redirect your ships velocity by passing within the gravity field of the planet ... so you could go directly from point A to point B ... assuming you don't care about returning or there is a fuel source at point B ... Basically it's so they don't have to cancel out linear momentum with onboard energy sources that they had achieved before in take off ... slinging around a planet doesn't really accelerate your ship ... your ship's velocity is just diverted to a different direction ... Edited by: Assaultman67
Rafenrazer Concept artist	Oct 1 2009, 1:01pm Anchor
Incorrect,to an extent, it doesn't change your ships velocity relative to the planet (it reverses it) but it changes it relative to the sun (which is the biggest space warping object) slingshotting a space craft increases the ships speed relative to the celestial bodies speed relative to the sun... This will expalin it bette than i can. En.wikipedia.org
Assaultman67	Oct 1 2009, 4:53pm Anchor
Its more for changing the direction of your ship ... not so much speeding it up ... (well ... at least in the earth-moon run) -- My links:\|Xfire\|Mars Wars 3\|Steam\| My Mod/Game Watches: \|Lift Mod\|Overgrowth\|Airborn\|MechOverride\|Warm Gun\|Star Trek: Enterprise - TCW\|
N0dachi	Oct 2 2009, 11:04am Anchor
Well i have to say Rafenrazer is right, slinshotting is increasing the speed. Its been already done. All Voyager Satilites (not Star Trek) were accelerated that way around Jupiter.
Assaultman67	Oct 2 2009, 12:07pm Anchor
... Maybe -_- ... OK FINE HE'S RIGHT ... I didn't think about the planet itself moving through space ... if you are taking the ship's magnitude of velocity with respect to the planet ... the magnitude of velocity doesn't change ... but on a "galactic" coodinate system ... it does ... damn vector mechanics and its relative coordinate systems! But changing the direction that your ship in space is still a very big reason as to why they do that ... to change the direction of your velocity without a celestial body would require a impulse (an impulse being generated by your thrusters ... thrusters take energy) ... and if you were say turning 90 degrees (let alone 180), that impulse would be freaking huge if you have 40 tons traveling 1/2 the speed of light ... Edited by: Assaultman67

Thread Options

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Rafenrazer Concept artist

Sep 1 2009, 11:20am Anchor

Chances are space warfare will happen localy (within close orbit of large celestial bodies) as open space isnt fun. Nor is there anything worth fighting over (resources or chokepoints ect.)
spaceships will likely be speacilised in either landing men on celestial bodies or protecting and destroying other ships. The most feasible weapon in space in my mind would be a solid expanding pig iron guided missle to be lauched from a railgun, it would have high velicoity, be guided to compinsate for enemy movment over such vast distances and lauched in large numbers. The reason being that most images of targets will be seconds if not minutes old (see light), so a targets actual positions will be different from those seen. Chances are some shots will miss (dumb weapons e.g lasers) or be intercepted.

robtai

Sep 28 2009, 7:26am Anchor

I doubt space warfare will be something that we see in games or on TV especially not at the moment. I reckon it would involve nuclear energy and nuclear weaponry. Pretty sure lasers would be used, they are already being used today in the missile defense system and wherever else. Doubt we would use actually bullets that would be quite strange, imagine how close you would have to get in order to shoot.

Would probably use like plasma or something... who knows, but interesting.

Assaultman67

Sep 28 2009, 10:34am Anchor

robtai wrote:... Doubt we would use actually bullets that would be quite strange, imagine how close you would have to get in order to shoot.

Would probably use like plasma or something... who knows, but interesting.

not as close as you would think (less than say ... 10 miles) ... however you would have to spray alot of them to compensate for accuracy ...

Edited by: Assaultman67

O
N
L
I
N
E

Handgun_Hero Vietnam | Glory Obscured Beta Tester

Sep 28 2009, 4:43pm Anchor

I think that it will most definitely involve lasers. Firing at light speed with no recoil, they are by far the most accurate and most highest velocity weapons around.

--

Can you tell me doctor why I still can't get to sleep?
The night time's just a jungle dark and a barking M16.
What's this rash that comes and goes can you tell me what it means?
God help me, I was only 19.

Gibberstein Generic Coder Type Thing

Sep 28 2009, 5:23pm Anchor

Sod lasers, accelerate mass to near-light speed instead. Almost as quick travelling from source to target, and a lot more damaging.

@Rafenrazer

I agree on the whole, but you are forgetting cases like pursuit and interception. If there's someone you don't want running free you don't just let them run and hope you get them if they come back, you engage them on the run. Similarly, if you have intelligence saying where a hostile force are approaching from you probably want to intercept away from inhabited and/or strategically important locations and hit them before they get reach their target - it's just safer than waiting for them to arrive and hoping you can contain them on your last line of defence.

--

"lets say Portal is a puzzle game, so its a rehash of Tetris"
- Wraiyth points out the craziness of stereotyping games by their genre

robtai

Sep 28 2009, 8:21pm Anchor

Gibberstein wrote:Sod lasers, accelerate mass to near-light speed instead. Almost as quick travelling from source to target, and a lot more damaging.

@Rafenrazer

I agree on the whole, but you are forgetting cases like pursuit and interception. If there's someone you don't want running free you don't just let them run and hope you get them if they come back, you engage them on the run. Similarly, if you have intelligence saying where a hostile force are approaching from you probably want to intercept away from inhabited and/or strategically important locations and hit them before they get reach their target - it's just safer than waiting for them to arrive and hoping you can contain them on your last line of defence.

Isnt that laser?

BoredGunman

Sep 28 2009, 8:45pm Anchor

Gotta imagine just how much heat the hull can take if your using lasers. They're made to withstand the amount of heat buildt-up from re-entering the atmosphere. And if lasers are effective, since with the technology nowadays that can send rockets to hit a moving target miles away with pinpoint accuracy, why would there be any chase? The laser beam would only need to be focused long enough with auto tracking to melt a hole through the hull

N0dachi

Sep 29 2009, 2:50am Anchor

robtai wrote:

Gibberstein wrote:Sod lasers, accelerate mass to near-light speed instead. Almost as quick travelling from source to target, and a lot more damaging.

@Rafenrazer

I agree on the whole, but you are forgetting cases like pursuit and interception. If there's someone you don't want running free you don't just let them run and hope you get them if they come back, you engage them on the run. Similarly, if you have intelligence saying where a hostile force are approaching from you probably want to intercept away from inhabited and/or strategically important locations and hit them before they get reach their target - it's just safer than waiting for them to arrive and hoping you can contain them on your last line of defence.

Isnt that laser?

No its a particle beam, much more destructive then a mere laser.

Gibberstein Generic Coder Type Thing

Sep 29 2009, 3:08am Anchor

@Rafenrazer

No. Roughly speaking, a laser is a very powerful, focused torch - pure light. A chunk of metal is still a chunk of metal no matter how fast you get it moving

@BoredGunman

I'd imagine the hull would take a very long time to heat to failure point, especially if said hull is constantly rolling and turning so you can't focus on the same place for the whole time. You've also got to account for lag here - yeah, lag, just like your online FPS, but this time due to the time required for the light to reach you from your target, and your laser light to then reach them. It won't be much, but it would be enough to prevent a perfect prediction if you have any kind of evasive action going on. Again, mass driving for the win - it might be a bit slower, so slightly harder to hit with , but throw sufficient weight and speed behind your projectile and one hit becomes a serious issue.

As for rockets, remember they achieve the accuracy by constantly adjusting their flight. It's easier to adjust to hit a target in-flight than it is to be spot-on from the start.

--

"lets say Portal is a puzzle game, so its a rehash of Tetris"
- Wraiyth points out the craziness of stereotyping games by their genre

p0rt mincemeat n onions

Sep 29 2009, 4:36am Anchor

blast a projectile like a tank using a high powered hydralic, which fires roughly 30,000 kph, use ion thrust to maintain velocity, fire 1 in space with no forces and friction, the projectile would probaly be near lightspeed

Edited by: p0rt

--

quake 4 militia rCon 1.7 mod - repacked into pk4s with dds images =>
point release 1.4.2, both sp/mp - new ai tacticles
/physics/weapon settings/huds/fx, adds full multi-position mp vehicles, mp weapon/vehicle flashlights, fp guided projectiles, playerview bloodsplashes, mp model specific lipsynced pain/voice taunts, view frag leader/teambase with salute etc emotes at the end of mp games, 3 mp gametypes - reactor!lastman standing!invisibility, mp sfx - groundshakes!nightmare etc sp ai hearing, and much more and tweaks. no models or maps, just cyber q4 fragfest
download/full info

O
N
L
I
N
E

Handgun_Hero Vietnam | Glory Obscured Beta Tester

Sep 29 2009, 5:54am Anchor

That's actually a good point. With space there is no forces or friction. If a rocket were to be fired it will keep on going and won't lose thrust or lift as it has no drag or weight to stop it from going...

--

Can you tell me doctor why I still can't get to sleep?
The night time's just a jungle dark and a barking M16.
What's this rash that comes and goes can you tell me what it means?
God help me, I was only 19.

robtai

Sep 29 2009, 6:27am Anchor

Gibberstein wrote:@Rafenrazer

No. Roughly speaking, a laser is a very powerful, focused torch - pure light. A chunk of metal is still a chunk of metal no matter how fast you get it moving

@BoredGunman

I'd imagine the hull would take a very long time to heat to failure point, especially if said hull is constantly rolling and turning so you can't focus on the same place for the whole time. You've also got to account for lag here - yeah, lag, just like your online FPS, but this time due to the time required for the light to reach you from your target, and your laser light to then reach them. It won't be much, but it would be enough to prevent a perfect prediction if you have any kind of evasive action going on. Again, mass driving for the win - it might be a bit slower, so slightly harder to hit with , but throw sufficient weight and speed behind your projectile and one hit becomes a serious issue.

As for rockets, remember they achieve the accuracy by constantly adjusting their flight. It's easier to adjust to hit a target in-flight than it is to be spot-on from the start.

Oh I see. Yeah doubt rockets would be that effective considering they would need to travel pretty fast aswell as change direction frequently, like Gibberstein said. The particle beam and laser I resume would be easier to use considering they travel a hell of alot faster, so guiding should be that hard. Was just thinking of the design of the rockets. Considering there is no air or oxygen in space in or to provide lift or in able to turn. So it would need like viffing rockets, like on the F22? Thats the theory anyway

Edited by: robtai

N0dachi

Sep 29 2009, 6:53am Anchor

Rockets nowadays always carry the needed oxygen with them, that wouldnt be a problem in space. A problem with any kind of propulsion system, be it a particle beam or a cannon, would be the force hammering the ship. Imagine the Bismarck (German warship during WW2 i assume you know it). Upon firing all main cannons to one side simultaniously the ship jumped back about 2metres. If you were to do that in space your ship would fly around without any control.

robtai

Sep 29 2009, 7:04am Anchor

N0dachi wrote:Rockets nowadays always carry the needed oxygen with them, that wouldnt be a problem in space. A problem with any kind of propulsion system, be it a particle beam or a cannon, would be the force hammering the ship. Imagine the Bismarck (German warship during WW2 i assume you know it). Upon firing all main cannons to one side simultaneously the ship jumped back about 2metres. If you were to do that in space your ship would fly around without any control.

Oh yeah I meant guided missiles. I am saying that you cant use the fins on a missile to guide it as it would not do the same in space. The Bismarck of course, that was one of Germany's greatest ships, I take it you are referring to the recoil? yip I know you are right, missiles/rockets dont have much of a recoil though? or you just counter balance the blast by engaging side rockets (computerised)

O
N
L
I
N
E

Handgun_Hero Vietnam | Glory Obscured Beta Tester

Sep 29 2009, 7:48am Anchor

Yeah, you need jets on all sides to achieve propulsion in space, as seen with the X15. There is no air to create lift (however thrust can take this over) so you need something to push it up. Also no air is there to allow you to use control surfaces to maneuver.

--

Can you tell me doctor why I still can't get to sleep?
The night time's just a jungle dark and a barking M16.
What's this rash that comes and goes can you tell me what it means?
God help me, I was only 19.

p0rt mincemeat n onions

Sep 29 2009, 8:18am Anchor

Handgun_Hero wrote:That's actually a good point. With space there is no forces or friction. If a rocket were to be fired it will keep on going and won't lose thrust or lift as it has no drag or weight to stop it from going...

a healthy solar storm/wind pushes satalites, hence the theory of using sails to move meteors

--

quake 4 militia rCon 1.7 mod - repacked into pk4s with dds images =>
point release 1.4.2, both sp/mp - new ai tacticles
/physics/weapon settings/huds/fx, adds full multi-position mp vehicles, mp weapon/vehicle flashlights, fp guided projectiles, playerview bloodsplashes, mp model specific lipsynced pain/voice taunts, view frag leader/teambase with salute etc emotes at the end of mp games, 3 mp gametypes - reactor!lastman standing!invisibility, mp sfx - groundshakes!nightmare etc sp ai hearing, and much more and tweaks. no models or maps, just cyber q4 fragfest
download/full info

Assaultman67

Sep 29 2009, 10:42am Anchor

robtai wrote:

N0dachi wrote:Rockets nowadays always carry the needed oxygen with them, that wouldnt be a problem in space. A problem with any kind of propulsion system, be it a particle beam or a cannon, would be the force hammering the ship. Imagine the Bismarck (German warship during WW2 i assume you know it). Upon firing all main cannons to one side simultaneously the ship jumped back about 2metres. If you were to do that in space your ship would fly around without any control.

Oh yeah I meant guided missiles. I am saying that you cant use the fins on a missile to guide it as it would not do the same in space. The Bismarck of course, that was one of Germany's greatest ships, I take it you are referring to the recoil? yip I know you are right, missiles/rockets dont have much of a recoil though? or you just counter balance the blast by engaging side rockets (computerised)

Missles and rockets don't have much recoil because their acceleration is done in flight ... they are launched at a relatively low speed and they then accelerate using their onboard engine ... so there is little recoil that the ship will recieve ...

however it would be harder to make a rocket reach the speed of regular gun based weapondry of similar size because your energy source has to be located on the projectile itself, not within the ship ... which would restrict its ability to accelerate to blinding speeds

the rocket would have one main engine with smaller propulsion methods lateral to the main one ... and since their is no atmosphere or friction in space ... the rocket could look like practically anything ... it would no longer have to be shaped the way we stereotypically see it ...

--

Rafenrazer Concept artist

Oct 1 2009, 2:05am Anchor

Realistically lasers can only be used in ranges of about 900,000 km (slightly less than 3 times the distance between the earth and the moon, centre to centre) which gives a time delay of around 4 seconds, probably slightly less. Again i use this to reinforce my idea that space combat will happen within local boundaries of celestial bodies, note that the average orbiting speed of most solar bodies is around 6-9km per second, so four seconds coul mean a potentail miss of 24-36km.
Laser hits however could be catastrophic, or the complete oposite if solar panel technology has move far enoguh to absorb such things. In the even that it hasn't heat would build up in the space craft, possibly melting the hull and cooking the crew, remember heat cannot excape as their is no air in space to transfer heat to, in order for energy to escape it has to leave in the form of light. However if hit areas are removed (exploding armour fashion) quickly enough a dangerous heat transfer may not occur, unless the beam was constant (not a small pulse).
Solid matter projectiles such as guided missles would always have the velicty of their host craft plus that produced by their engines, though slower than lasers they could be guided, they would almost certainly do more energy transfer, as solid projectiles transfer energy by both kinetic and thermal means.
Another reason why open space warfare is unlikey is due to the nature of space travel at the current time, assuming faster than light travel sint possible most ships will have to "slingshot" round celestial bodies, meaning that inhospitable planets with no resouces could become important chokepoints if you want to travel quickly from planet A to plant C via slingshoting yourself to B then C.
Again the science of the above is not complete and the math i would have to finalize would likely take me a ridciulosuly long time to caculate and would likey be wrong to some degree or waaay too vauge.

Gibberstein Generic Coder Type Thing

Oct 1 2009, 2:54am Anchor

Something I've maybe missed here, but what would stop them going straight from A->C rather than going A->B->C?

--

"lets say Portal is a puzzle game, so its a rehash of Tetris"
- Wraiyth points out the craziness of stereotyping games by their genre

Rafenrazer Concept artist

Oct 1 2009, 3:44am Anchor

the extra 4 months of travel time? Too much fuel spent? Assuming a minimum-energy launch windows is the only possible travel option in which you can arrive in combat condition (open space travel requires alot more energy that tradition slingshot travel). Fuel would likely to be limited in space craft even if they used hydrogen, so slingshoting would allow for sufficient fuel reserves to be left over.
Again this is all guess work.

Assaultman67

Oct 1 2009, 12:37pm Anchor

Using the planets within the system is more of a conservation of kinetic energy thing ... by using the planets in the system you can redirect your ships velocity by passing within the gravity field of the planet ... so you could go directly from point A to point B ... assuming you don't care about returning or there is a fuel source at point B ...

Basically it's so they don't have to cancel out linear momentum with onboard energy sources that they had achieved before in take off ...

slinging around a planet doesn't really accelerate your ship ... your ship's velocity is just diverted to a different direction ...

Edited by: Assaultman67

Rafenrazer Concept artist

Oct 1 2009, 1:01pm Anchor

Incorrect,to an extent, it doesn't change your ships velocity relative to the planet (it reverses it) but it changes it relative to the sun (which is the biggest space warping object) slingshotting a space craft increases the ships speed relative to the celestial bodies speed relative to the sun... This will expalin it bette than i can.
En.wikipedia.org

Assaultman67

Oct 1 2009, 4:53pm Anchor

Its more for changing the direction of your ship ... not so much speeding it up ... (well ... at least in the earth-moon run)

--

N0dachi

Oct 2 2009, 11:04am Anchor

Well i have to say Rafenrazer is right, slinshotting is increasing the speed. Its been already done. All Voyager Satilites (not Star Trek) were accelerated that way around Jupiter.

Assaultman67

Oct 2 2009, 12:07pm Anchor

... Maybe -_- ... OK FINE HE'S RIGHT ... I didn't think about the planet itself moving through space ... if you are taking the ship's magnitude of velocity with respect to the planet ... the magnitude of velocity doesn't change ... but on a "galactic" coodinate system ... it does :tired: ... damn vector mechanics and its relative coordinate systems!

But changing the direction that your ship in space is still a very big reason as to why they do that :paranoid: ...

to change the direction of your velocity without a celestial body would require a impulse (an impulse being generated by your thrusters ... thrusters take energy) ... and if you were say turning 90 degrees (let alone 180), that impulse would be freaking huge if you have 40 tons traveling 1/2 the speed of light ...

Edited by: Assaultman67