Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hate:

All the aliens have human emotions. On TV shows they are often a single facet.

Very rarely do aliens act...alien, or can do unexpected things. Here's the only ones I kind think of in that category:
*Shadows (B5)
*Alien (Alien)
*Andromeda Strain (alien virus/lifeform/thingy)
*Monument builders (2001)

 kronk wrote:
Drones! Let the pilots steer them from inside the capital ships. If the communications are jammed, have the drones AI take over.

The problem with drones and more/bigger missiles is that we are talking about at least one (probably more) highly volatile and power dependent explodey control panels.

If a comms or navigational panel can kill a redshirt you can bet you arse a missile one will.

Of course the down side to fighters is the inevitable episode where one gets lost in space and there a nervous wait while the oxygen runs out. Still it kills an hour so whatevs.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So some sort of made up nonsense makes fighters practical - alrighty then. That's another thing for this thread that bugs me about sci-fi fluff, made up nonsense.

Yeah, like that faster-than-light-travel nonsense.

Oh, wait, what's NASA working on again?



There's an awful lot of technology that started out as the stuff of space opera and wound up either being made or being considered feasible with the right advancements. SciFi doesn't have to just include stuff that's technologically possible today... that would somewhat defy the point of it.

They can only hit once - but that one hit is much harder than two runs from a fighter of similar size that has to fire even smaller munitions.

But happens once. If at all.

Range is a problem, if you're trying to (for example) remain out of range of an planet's surface or orbital defenses.

No, I was talking about range as in the distance the projectile can travel before running out of fuel, since you were talking about only needing to go one way.

Yes, the missile only needs to make a one way trip... but that's not an issue in a setting where the fuel or power source for the fighter takes up a significant amount of space.

G force exists in space. I assume that if you were to suddenly stop the Shuttle, everyone would crash into the front bulkhead as there is nothing connecting them to the shuttle- thus they keep going at full speed until they can't anymore.

My pet peeve is space combat. "Real" space combat, as evidenced in my favorite book series (The Lost Fleet) would be at gigantic distances with everything hampered by relativistic velocity. Humans simply couldn't cope without advanced targeting computers and/or AI.

Even at near-light speed velocities, missiles fired at something even 10-20 light-seconds away would hit their target that many seconds before you ever see the light from the explosion return to you. Also, to hit the target you are firing at, you have to extrapolate a guess based on where it was headed when you fired them, versus the portion of lights-peed that your missiles can obtain, and hope it makes no course corrections in the meantime.

Imagine how long it takes a sound message to travel to the moon. Now imagine reacting by sight to something that has already happened and is already on it's way by the time you see it happen.

Me brain hurts.

yup, and thats again why fighters are a good idea. They don't have the issues with their visual of the target being multiple seconds or even minutes behind.

 Grey Templar wrote:
yup, and thats again why fighters are a good idea. They don't have the issues with their visual of the target being multiple seconds or even minutes behind.

The problem with that is that they have to make the approach while completely exposed (space is BIG and also empty) and dealing with weapons that they can't see before they've already been hit. They also have to carry four times as much fuel as a missile or drone in order to actually make it back to their host ship. Much more efficient to just throw an AI in a disposable drone or missile chassis, load it up with submunitions, and have it suicide into something when it finally runs out of ammo. You can cut-and-paste AI software a hell of a lot faster than it takes to grow a new person and teach him to fly a space ship.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:
Not really. Acceleration is just a matter of percentage of mass devoted to engines, and larger engines rapidly become more efficient than smaller ones (efficiencies of scale and all that jazz). A larger ship can afford to mount a larger percentage as engine, as the small ship has static costs (life support, etc.) as a higher percentage of its mass already.

There is an economy of scale to some degree, however, there is also the law of diminishing returns. To accelerate a large mass at the same rate as a smaller mass, you need to use significantly more energy. You can certainly mount huge engines on a bigger ship, however, the energy output of those engines will not necessarily give the same or better power to mass ratio as smaller engines on a smaller ship.

Oh, definitely. Didn't mean to imply that Star Destroyer sized ships are actually a good idea by any means (mostly because turning ought to tear the things in half).

 Laughing Man wrote:
The problem with that is that they have to make the approach while completely exposed (space is BIG and also empty) and dealing with weapons that they can't see before they've already been hit.

Luckily for them, I hear space is quite big...

They also have to carry four times as much fuel as a missile or drone in order to actually make it back to their host ship.

Once again, only an issue if fuel space is at a premium.

And assuming they go back to their control ship, rather than the ship pickinhg them up after the battle.

You can cut-and-paste AI software a hell of a lot faster than it takes to grow a new person and teach him to fly a space ship.

Can you? How long does it take to copy an AI capable of piloting a space-going craft in battle?

 insaniak wrote:

Luckily for them, I hear space is quite big...

This works against the fighter, not in its favor. With larger weapons, lasers can simply aim for wider areas of space and still turn a small object to a rapidly expanding cloud of gas, whereas on a smaller platform increasing the area coverage might just might singe the paint job of the target. The larger ship also has larger sensor arrays available to it, which means it gets a better idea of where to shoot in the first place.

They also have to carry four times as much fuel as a missile or drone in order to actually make it back to their host ship.

Once again, only an issue if fuel space is at a premium.

And assuming they go back to their control ship, rather than the ship pickinhg them up after the battle.

If it's being picked up by the host ship, the fighter still needs to carry twice the amount of fuel as a drone or missile, as it needs to be able to stop (if otherwise, four times, as it needs to stop, accelerate back to the host, and then stop again). As for fuel space, with most sensible drives (read: anything that isn't powered by handwavium) it definitely is. Even with the best delta-V per kilogram (tied between NSWR and Orion drives, IIRC), being able to carry more nuclear explosives is Always A Good Thing (tm).

You can cut-and-paste AI software a hell of a lot faster than it takes to grow a new person and teach him to fly a space ship.

Can you? How long does it take to copy an AI capable of piloting a space-going craft in battle?

Presumably less than 30 years. Even assuming that an AI would entirely fill the storage capacity of ye olde human brain, you're only looking at about 2.5 petabytes.

Yeah, if a fighter is powered by a small nuclear reactor, fuel is not going to be an issue. At least in the context of a battle.

Check out Star Wars, X-wings are capable of FTL travel just like all the larger ships. They don't have real range concerns related to fuel.

Alternativly, you have fighter craft that, while they use a fuel that needs to be replenished quite frequently, the fighter is large enough to carry a substantial fuel supply. Easily enough to last for most of a battle or a a long distance between its carrier and its target.


Yes, missiles are only a 1 way journey, but there are plenty of reasons a missile is not ideal in space.

1) easy to shoot down. If you are shooting a missile accross many thousands of kilometers of space, its going to take a relativly long time to reach its target. Plenty of time to get shot down by an anti-missile laser or missile. A fighter can carry counter measure systems or simply alter its course enough to make tracking it difficult or impossible given the distance.

2) Missiles are expensive. Yes, a fighter is more expensive than a missile. But it can be used over and over again and only requires fuel and ammo input.



Ultimatly, a mixture of fighters, missiles, and other stuff will get used. Because every type of weapon has a counter and only using one specific thing leaves you vulnerable to those counters. So you ill use a good mixture of weaponry to ensure you are never left completely without an answer.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, if a fighter is powered by a small nuclear reactor, fuel is not going to be an issue. At least in the context of a battle.

It will, actually. While you can use the energy from a reactor to move your propellant, you still need propellant in the first place. For obvious reasons, throwing your entire reactor out the ass end of your ship is probably not a good idea, nor is just venting coolant. It's slightly easier with fusion, as you can throw your byproducts in the other direction, but that limits your acceleration based on how quickly you're reacting your fuel. Of course, you could use the aforementioned nuclear salt water reactors, but you again run into the issue that you're throwing your reactor fuel out the back as fast as you're reacting it (mostly because otherwise the continuous nuclear detonation turns your ship into a nifty little cloud of radioactive gas).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Check out Star Wars, X-wings are capable of FTL travel just like all the larger ships. They don't have real range concerns related to fuel.

Ignoring FTL for the moment due to handwavium. If we assume we have FTL, we can also assume time travel and terapedos, neither of which is good for predicting how war works.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, if a fighter is powered by a small nuclear reactor, fuel is not going to be an issue. At least in the context of a battle.

Check out Star Wars, X-wings are capable of FTL travel just like all the larger ships. They don't have real range concerns related to fuel.

Prithee tell how a nuclear reactor provides thrust, or how the X-wings are powered by anything other than "handwavium"

 Grey Templar wrote:

Alternativly, you have fighter craft that, while they use a fuel that needs to be replenished quite frequently, the fighter is large enough to carry a substantial fuel supply. Easily enough to last for most of a battle or a a long distance between its carrier and its target.

A missile could carry the same amount of fuel on a smaller platform.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Yes, missiles are only a 1 way journey, but there are plenty of reasons a missile is not ideal in space.

1) easy to shoot down. If you are shooting a missile accross many thousands of kilometers of space, its going to take a relativly long time to reach its target. Plenty of time to get shot down by an anti-missile laser or missile. A fighter can carry counter measure systems or simply alter its course enough to make tracking it difficult or impossible given the distance.

A missile can carry just the same countermeasure systems as a fighter, and can alter it's course enough to make tracking impossible as well. Modern day cruise missiles can weave through canyons; there's no reason a missile cannot maneuver as well as a fighter.

 Grey Templar wrote:

2) Missiles are expensive. Yes, a fighter is more expensive than a missile. But it can be used over and over again and only requires fuel and ammo input.

Even with the re-usability of fighters, missiles are still cost-per-effectiveness cheaper. It's why modern cruise missiles are not entirely obsolete simply because fighters are re-usable.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Ultimatly, a mixture of fighters, missiles, and other stuff will get used. Because every type of weapon has a counter and only using one specific thing leaves you vulnerable to those counters. So you ill use a good mixture of weaponry to ensure you are never left completely without an answer.

The problem is, a fighter has the same counters as a missile, but cannot defend itself as effectively because it has a human pilot, which necessitates space and mass wastage for extra fuel and life-support and also inhibits maneuverability and reaction times on account of the biological nature of the pilot.

 Laughing Man wrote:
Ignoring FTL for the moment due to handwavium.

Again, FTL is no longer considered the realm of handwavium.

 insaniak wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:
Ignoring FTL for the moment due to handwavium.

Again, FTL is no longer considered the realm of handwavium.

Which is why I'm ok with it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Even with the re-usability of fighters, missiles are still cost-per-effectiveness cheaper. It's why modern cruise missiles are not entirely obsolete simply because fighters are re-usable.

Of course, to turn that around: we still have fighters despite missiles being more cost-effective...

Ignoring technological limitations, since that's just a matter of development time, is there any real reason to assume that will change?

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, if a fighter is powered by a small nuclear reactor, fuel is not going to be an issue. At least in the context of a battle.

It will, actually. While you can use the energy from a reactor to move your propellant, you still need propellant in the first place. For obvious reasons, throwing your entire reactor out the ass end of your ship is probably not a good idea, nor is just venting coolant. It's slightly easier with fusion, as you can throw your byproducts in the other direction, but that limits your acceleration based on how quickly you're reacting your fuel. Of course, you could use the aforementioned nuclear salt water reactors, but you again run into the issue that you're throwing your reactor fuel out the back as fast as you're reacting it (mostly because otherwise the continuous nuclear detonation turns your ship into a nifty little cloud of radioactive gas).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Check out Star Wars, X-wings are capable of FTL travel just like all the larger ships. They don't have real range concerns related to fuel.

Ignoring FTL for the moment due to handwavium. If we assume we have FTL, we can also assume time travel and terapedos, neither of which is good for predicting how war works.

FTL is not handwavium, NASA is actually working on something right now thats right out of Star Trek(Space compression) which is well within the real of possibility. The energy requirements are within the feasible range of what we can accomplish.

Time Travel OTOH has very hard barriers not related to physics.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Time Travel OTOH has very hard barriers not related to physics.

Yeah, it runs up against the limitations of Brainhurtium.

 insaniak wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:
Ignoring FTL for the moment due to handwavium.

Again, FTL is no longer considered the realm of handwavium.

Yes yes, just because it now only requires a minimal energy expenditure equal to the entire mass of Jupiter instead of the mass of a couple universes makes it feasible. Not to mention the problem of getting out of a bubble once you make one, or causality violations meaning ships coming home for repairs before you finish building them.

The Grandfather paradox too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:
Ignoring FTL for the moment due to handwavium.

Again, FTL is no longer considered the realm of handwavium.

Yes yes, just because it now only requires a minimal energy expenditure equal to the entire mass of Jupiter instead of the mass of a couple universes makes it feasible. Not to mention the problem of getting out of a bubble once you make one, or causality violations meaning ships coming home for repairs before you finish building them.

Wrong, NASA's latest calculations put the energy required in the realm of what a Fusion reactor could generate. Which is more than viable.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Time Travel OTOH has very hard barriers not related to physics.

Only if you assume causality actually works, which isn't neccessarily true. Relativity has a lot more evidence going for it, and between the three (FTL, relativity, and causality) you can only have two.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The Grandfather paradox too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:
Ignoring FTL for the moment due to handwavium.

Again, FTL is no longer considered the realm of handwavium.

Yes yes, just because it now only requires a minimal energy expenditure equal to the entire mass of Jupiter instead of the mass of a couple universes makes it feasible. Not to mention the problem of getting out of a bubble once you make one, or causality violations meaning ships coming home for repairs before you finish building them.

Wrong, NASA's latest calculations put the energy required in the realm of what a Fusion reactor could generate. Which is more than viable.

Source?

 insaniak wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Even with the re-usability of fighters, missiles are still cost-per-effectiveness cheaper. It's why modern cruise missiles are not entirely obsolete simply because fighters are re-usable.

Of course, to turn that around: we still have fighters despite missiles being more cost-effective...

Ignoring technological limitations, since that's just a matter of development time, is there any real reason to assume that will change?

Yes, because it is already changing. Fighters are slowly being replaced by drones and UAVs as our technology develops.

Is there any reason to assume singe-seat manned fighters will even make it off of this planet before being replaced by drones and eventually AI?

 Laughing Man wrote:
Yes yes, just because it now only requires a minimal energy expenditure equal to the entire mass of Jupiter instead of the mass of a couple universes makes it feasible. Not to mention the problem of getting out of a bubble once you make one, or causality violations meaning ships coming home for repairs before you finish building them.

The first computer was little more than an adding machine.

Again, SciFi shouldn't be limited to our current level of scientific understanding. If it is, it isn't SciFi... it's just Sci.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, because it is already changing. Fighters are slowly being replaced by drones and UAVs as our technology develops.

Is there any reason to assume singe-seat manned fighters will even make it off of this planet before being replaced by drones and eventually AI?

Politics, for one. There will be considerable resistance to AI-piloted warmachines for quite some time, I would expect.

And remote-controlled drones potentially run into the same problem as communication, or tracking projectiles... Distance-induced signal lag. Not as huge a problem in terrestrial warfare, but a very big one in space.

The primary advantage of the fighter over the missile is that of judgement - the missile strike where it is targeted, the fighter pilot can see the target has moved over there and react accordingly.

Of course, that is rapidly becoming less of a concern with increases in sensor, computer, and remote control technology.

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Time Travel OTOH has very hard barriers not related to physics.

Only if you assume causality actually works, which isn't neccessarily true. Relativity has a lot more evidence going for it, and between the three (FTL, relativity, and causality) you can only have two.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The Grandfather paradox too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:
Ignoring FTL for the moment due to handwavium.

Again, FTL is no longer considered the realm of handwavium.

Yes yes, just because it now only requires a minimal energy expenditure equal to the entire mass of Jupiter instead of the mass of a couple universes makes it feasible. Not to mention the problem of getting out of a bubble once you make one, or causality violations meaning ships coming home for repairs before you finish building them.

Wrong, NASA's latest calculations put the energy required in the realm of what a Fusion reactor could generate. Which is more than viable.

Source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive#Mass-energy_requirement second paragraph. Estimations put it about 700kg of mass energy.

 insaniak wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:
Yes yes, just because it now only requires a minimal energy expenditure equal to the entire mass of Jupiter instead of the mass of a couple universes makes it feasible. Not to mention the problem of getting out of a bubble once you make one, or causality violations meaning ships coming home for repairs before you finish building them.

The first computer was little more than an adding machine.

Again, SciFi shouldn't be limited to our current level of scientific understanding. If it is, it isn't SciFi... it's just Sci.

No, it's space opera. There's almost always a little bit of give (usually in the FTL department, admittedly), but sci fi manages to keep most of the physics raping to a minimum (and when they do violate physics, at least have the common decency to know the repercussions of doing so and staying internally consistent), and try to actually be plausible. Once you enter the realm off the USS Make gak Up, both of those go out the window and it becomes space opera.

 insaniak wrote:

Politics, for one. There will be considerable resistance to AI-piloted warmachines for quite some time, I would expect.

And remote-controlled drones potentially run into the same problem as communication, or tracking projectiles... Distance-induced signal lag. Not as huge a problem in terrestrial warfare, but a very big one in space.

Well, hopefully the practicalities of war will overcome political resistance, or we will be roflstomped by the first people to put AIs in machines.

And if they don't have FTL communications to beat signal lag with, then any sort of interstellar empire at all is pointless because you don't have FTL comms! It would take 4 years for a, say, army-mustering request to reach Alpha Centauri, not to mention the 4 more it would take to receive their reply!

 Ratbarf wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Time Travel OTOH has very hard barriers not related to physics.

Only if you assume causality actually works, which isn't neccessarily true. Relativity has a lot more evidence going for it, and between the three (FTL, relativity, and causality) you can only have two.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The Grandfather paradox too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:
Ignoring FTL for the moment due to handwavium.

Again, FTL is no longer considered the realm of handwavium.

Yes yes, just because it now only requires a minimal energy expenditure equal to the entire mass of Jupiter instead of the mass of a couple universes makes it feasible. Not to mention the problem of getting out of a bubble once you make one, or causality violations meaning ships coming home for repairs before you finish building them.

Wrong, NASA's latest calculations put the energy required in the realm of what a Fusion reactor could generate. Which is more than viable.

Source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive#Mass-energy_requirement second paragraph. Estimations put it about 700kg of mass energy.

Ah. So the equivalent of setting off the entire world's nuclear arsenals. Six times. Yes, that's totally feasible with a fusion generator. Still doesn't address problems with causality violations due to Special Relativity either.

 Laughing Man wrote:
Ah. So the equivalent of setting off the entire world's nuclear arsenals. Six times. Yes, that's totally feasible with a fusion generator.

It's still just a starting point, though. The fact that they may need a more efficient energy source doesn't preclude the development of one. Lithium camera batteries were impossible a hundred years ago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Well, hopefully the practicalities of war will overcome political resistance, or we will be roflstomped by the first people to put AIs in machines.

Never underestimate the power of the human organism to be stupid...

And if they don't have FTL communications to beat signal lag with, then any sort of interstellar empire at all is pointless because you don't have FTL comms! It would take 4 years for a, say, army-mustering request to reach Alpha Centauri, not to mention the 4 more it would take to receive their reply!

Of course, since we're talking scifi, some of that comes down to the setting. Various scifi settings have had varying degrees of speed for FTL communication... Often it's just down to what creates the most drama. Early Star Trek used it to push the ship out into a real frontier, where Captains had to act autonomously because it could take months to hear from head office.

I've seen signal-lagged drones used quite effectively in at least one story, where the writer managed to use them cleverly to add depth to the battle, with drone controllers having to factor that lag into their commands. It's certainly more common to just assume that control signals are instantaneous, though.

 insaniak wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:
Ah. So the equivalent of setting off the entire world's nuclear arsenals. Six times. Yes, that's totally feasible with a fusion generator.

It's still just a starting point, though. The fact that they may need a more efficient energy source doesn't preclude the development of one. Lithium camera batteries were impossible a hundred years ago.

And barring blowing up about a cow's weight in antimatter (probably two or three cows to make up for most of the radiation being unusable), there isn't really a more efficient energy source. So instead of needing to make an anti-Jupiter, we just have to build a fusion plant the size of Jupiter.

 Frazzled wrote:
2) everyone can see everyone from far away. There's no surprise advantage.

That's a massive assumption that may not be true at all. Think about the potential effective range of weapons in a frictionless environment - range could be measured in hundreds of thousands of kilometres or even more. And then think about the size of space at that range.

I mean sure, if you've got Star Trek quality sensors that can determine the number of lifeforms on a planet in seconds then spotting the exact location of enemy ships within a few hundred thousand kms... but Star Trek sensors are stupid. Instead you're staring in to the vast black of space, trying to pick up heat signatures or the like, on vessels that are likely designed to mask their heat signatures. It's likely combat would be all about surprise and identifying the exact position of the enemy before he identifies you.

This is why I've always preferred the sub battle analogy to space combat - the art is in spotting the enemy, once that's done killing him is the easy part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, but you will still have maximum effective ranges.

At very long distances, missiles will be trivially easy to shoot down with counter measures because you have tons of time to track it and hit it. yes, you could put in evasive abilities for the missiles but that is just making your weapons more and more complicated(and thus expensive) which will hit a point where its not worth it.

Anything you said there that counts against missiles also counts against fighters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Wait... there wouldn't be any "G-tolerance" issue for fighter planes in space...right?

There would. Rapid acceleration and deceleration causes nausea and blackouts whether you're in a gravity well like earth or not.

 Laughing Man wrote:
And barring blowing up about a cow's weight in antimatter (probably two or three cows to make up for most of the radiation being unusable), there isn't really a more efficient energy source.

...that we currently know about.

Given that not so long ago FTL travel was just considered completely impossible, writing it off on the basis that we just don't currently have a big enough battery seems a litle premature, don't you think?