tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post2117619239537838782..comments2024-03-28T00:36:19.403-07:00Comments on Rocketpunk Manifesto: Space Fighters, Reconsidered?Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comBlogger182125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-44220168903265363662013-01-14T03:25:42.778-08:002013-01-14T03:25:42.778-08:00Comparison to naval copters, interesting.
Personal...Comparison to naval copters, interesting.<br />Personally i imagine the bigger corvettes to something like Hind copters, transport/attack role.<br />While i imagine the smaller ones serving a patrol/attack role.<br /><br />I wondered on the following, we already have Hubble Kepler, the military could have launched something like that to monitor the surface... but traditional methods of recon didnt become obsolate.<br />Could a small craft from close range see more than the mothership from GEO, or lunar Lagrange point?<br /><br />Otherwise, if long range lascannons wont be really viable, or have hour long recharge time or something like that (W40k, Mass Effect kinetics are much stronger than lasers, in SW either they have poor sensors and tracking compus or superior jammers) than small craft can do things more efficiently than even a giant mothership from afar. I think about taking out LEO stations and destroyers with all around attacks (using horizont, debris, etc to advantage) if the situation gets really bad, like your lunar colony invaded by other ones.TOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07714038528716438776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-72895771004599936572012-05-16T12:36:05.728-07:002012-05-16T12:36:05.728-07:00Again coming late to the discussion but: even if t...Again coming late to the discussion but: even if the situation exists in which orbital platforms can blow one another to pieces with kinetics or nuclear bombs then you'd still need patrol craft and they could easily turn into fighters. <br /><br />Consider the cold war: despite our ability to vaporize one another both sides built large conventional (that is to say, sub city busting) arsenals. They did this for a variety of reasons, mostly due to the fact that there was with the best will in the world, a whole bunch of situations where you couldn't use the bomb. <br /><br />This applies even more so in a swarm of habitats because the equivalent of nuclear weapons is likely shooting down the enemy's habitats. Such an act would not only be a humanitarian catastrophe but it would also spray surrounding space with a whole constellation of fast moving debris. If you thought fallout was bad, this is much worse. <br /><br />Under those circumstances large numbers of small combat space craft could easily be built. Most operations are simply not vital enough to commit to mass slaughter and spraying the orbit with shrapnel. <br /><br />Even if you do need a general war, the existence of this equipment might well lead to a conventional phase in which neither side destroys the other by a sort of mutual agreement that was expected to govern the initial phase of a cold war gone hot. Only in this case there's less reason to escalate because there's no tactical nuclear bombs that push you inevitably over the threshold into a nuclear exchange.FBHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03016840478292138563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-62604476959799828522012-05-01T12:38:01.280-07:002012-05-01T12:38:01.280-07:00Returning to this situation : if the enemy storms ...Returning to this situation : if the enemy storms from behind the planet or moon, tactical situation changes suddenly, and the battleship can be further away, as it is less expendable.<br />Maybe the fighter squadron leaders should be manned, they are the ones, who knows the boats abilities the best, and can bring immediate decisions.<br /><br />I have found this one.<br /><br />http://gizmodo.com/5426453/the-physics-of-space-battles<br /><br />Otherwise, Rick have you seen anime<br />series Cowboy Bebop? It is about a space bounty hunter, maybe it can give inspiration. <br /><br />TOMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-21335995340086485972012-04-26T02:23:28.239-07:002012-04-26T02:23:28.239-07:00Or what can be the more specific definition of ...Or what can be the more specific definition of 'fighter'?<br /><br />When big ships involved i dont see enough reasons for dedicated interceptor fighters/gunboats, as dogfight will be short, you may only need remote controlled cannon boats or torpedo boats. /they, and their controllers still bring a little bit color to an otherwise dull and boring space battle/<br />Or assault transport boats for capturing, pirating.<br /><br />For Orbital Guard, manned gunboats are good IMHO. <br /><br /><br />otherwise, recently i telled a story in Warhammer40k universe, tau attack vs planet.<br />The small craft's duty was surrounding the planet, and fight against stratosphere fighters and nuclear missiles, so the destroyers could calmly beam down all major military infrastructure from low orbit.TOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07714038528716438776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-76779593314502221992012-04-26T01:02:41.028-07:002012-04-26T01:02:41.028-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.TOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07714038528716438776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-60289116054191186302012-04-25T01:58:22.972-07:002012-04-25T01:58:22.972-07:00Ferell : who said otherwise?
Rick : it seemed to ...Ferell : who said otherwise?<br /><br />Rick : it seemed to me, what he wrote, is like to your previous "lancer ship" idea, or am i wrong?<br />But of course people can have different options, or modify it.<br />(I regularly updating my models, to justify certain things with the least amount of magitech. )<br /><br />"But for more complex missions you might just want to combine a moderate weapon package with human judgment on the spot ..."<br /><br />Agreed. :)<br />What kind of missions can we collect?TOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07714038528716438776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-29577972584185182542012-04-24T19:41:37.865-07:002012-04-24T19:41:37.865-07:00I think that most people have the mistaken idea th...I think that most people have the mistaken idea that that a small space-going gun or missile ship (what is popularly called a 'space fighter'), would be normally operating alone; that isn't very logical, in the modern world, fighters attack in groups of anywhere from a pair to several dozen (in WWII there were raids were a 1000 planes attacked a single target); I don't see an logical reason that small attack spacecraft wouldn't operate in groups, as well.<br /><br />FerrellAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-51185158867719268942012-04-24T18:09:59.532-07:002012-04-24T18:09:59.532-07:00I finally caught up to the article that Tom linked...I finally caught up to the article that Tom linked above. The article itself did not persuade me very much. But lurking behind it, I think, are the same considerations I discussed in this post.<br /><br />In short, if your mission is simply to blow the bejeezus out of something, nothing even loosely fitting the 'space fighter' image is well suited to that job. But for more complex missions you might just want to combine a moderate weapon package with human judgment on the spot ...Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-61395423901246305892012-04-16T07:38:25.224-07:002012-04-16T07:38:25.224-07:00To Mr. Russian Commenter /sorry i cant spell your ...To Mr. Russian Commenter /sorry i cant spell your name, i mean no offense/ : I asked on physics forum, they said small light ships can provide bigger acceleration than capital ships, as they dont have to drag tons of fuel and equipment.<br />Capital ships can provide bigger delta-v but over a long time.<br /><br /><br />Well, after reading the link, i have the following thoughts :<br />Fight in space will be mission oriented, surprisingly.<br /><br />A small frigate or destroyer can rather mount torpedos than fighters, and they rather used for small conflicts, where it is enough, that you fire the torpedos, by the time they arrive, preferably your cannons ruined the defence systems, enemy has gone, we are happy.<br /><br />However in a prolonged conflict, you need dedicated logistic ships, battleships, maybe even mother ships.<br />They can mount and refuel, repair fighters, and reusablity does count, refuelling is much cheaper (repairing not so much, but still) than manufacturing new torpedos (not to mention delivering them, if you dont have a mother ship with a factory inside)<br />Ion/plasma thrusters can accept almost anything as propellant... although i dont know how much this can hinder performance.<br />About the price of torpedos : if they dont provide random acceleration, jamming, countersystems against enemy interceptor missiles, mines, than they has to launched in BIG swarms... <br />If they has theese abilities, than they are rather "kamikaze" fighters...<br />And if you dont know the exact technical details of the enemy, you can waste double amount than necessary to overwhelm the defence system, if you dont launch enough, they will be eaten by the defence system, if they hit by lasers, no chance to return for repair.<br /><br /><br />Torpedo boat carrier :<br /><br />http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/agp-6.htm<br /><br /><br />I wondered, whether jamming signal filtering can be like a complex image processing task, that still requires human like thinking...<br />But i cant really counter the arguments for drone fighters in a war setting (maybe with the exception of operating in a really difficult terrain, asteroid mine shaft, lunar cliffs, so Star Wars like scenarios).<br /> <br />In a police operations setting, immediate human level decision making can be required, like Rick said.<br /><br />Otherwise we can rather calculate with the following characters : aspiring little drone controller cadets, captains and admirals facing heavy decisions, what and who should be sacrifised for example...<br />Marines who try to capture enemy cargo ships and colonies /the fighters magnetic claws can drag their life support unit... well actually i call everything a figter, that is smaller than a corvette, it would more proper to call them fast space attack craft, torpedo boats, gunboats, assault boats... well i want to make them as versatile as it can be, with different payloads/<br />And secret agents try to get information, technical details about fleets, operations, secret plans, spread desinformation, make sabotages, create havoc.TOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07714038528716438776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-54525475249919496672012-04-15T20:05:56.514-07:002012-04-15T20:05:56.514-07:00Welcome to a new commenter, at least on this threa...Welcome to a new commenter, at least on this thread!<br /><br />Since my ignorance of Russian extends to not even knowing the Cyrillic alphabet, I'm in the embarrassing but amusing position of not even being able to mispronounce your name/handle.<br /><br />What do Russians call an armed helicopter? Of course, if it literally translates as 'armed helicopter,' it is not so helpful as a term for spacecraft.<br /><br />I don't think small spacecraft necessarily have lower linear acceleration - it depends on drive tech and fairly complex scaling factors. But smaller craft to generally have quicker 'pivot' response.<br /><br />In casual usage I often use 'fuel' to mean propellant. And presumably Russian rocket scientists have terms that allow them to know what stuff is in what tank. Otherwise, Soyuz would be a much less reliable means of space access.<br /><br /><br />None of which actually answers the main points, but the tidbits struck me as interesting. <br /><br />Now to go read Tom's link!Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-15380066277436875752012-04-13T03:14:02.890-07:002012-04-13T03:14:02.890-07:00http://worldofweirdthings.com/2011/12/30/why-space...http://worldofweirdthings.com/2011/12/30/why-space-fighters-would-actually-be-useful/<br /><br />Well i found this one.TOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07714038528716438776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-76083158041978658772012-04-13T03:06:30.483-07:002012-04-13T03:06:30.483-07:00Argh, why i lose my comments?
Rick : yes dragging...Argh, why i lose my comments?<br /><br />Rick : yes dragging torpedos can be also achieved with the magnetic claws of my fighter idea.<br /><br />Dont you think, dragging mirrors or lenses to refocus carrier's beams, extend efficient range is good idea?<br />Of course they are big targets, but lesser than a big ship.<br /><br />Otherwise i wonder about supercondensators, how good they will become. I read about a carbon nanotube one, that is enough for a bus from one stop to another.<br />If they can be good enough, you have time to power up the energy cannon.<br />/torpedos also need time to reach the target/TOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07714038528716438776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-20824148954469268602012-04-07T03:24:58.098-07:002012-04-07T03:24:58.098-07:00And part two. It's the fourth point, and it...And part two. It's the fourth point, and it's going to be extra heretical, as I debunk the notion of space fighter combat being much more exciting. Sure, that may be the case from the aviators' point of view, and then only for brief moments of sheer terror before a hypervelocity cat turd idly strafes your cockpit. <br /><br />But to the aircraft carrier's crew - and its flight commander(insistent terminology!) - a space battle would be a long and impossibly boring venture. You arrive, you cut acceleration, you launch fighters and then lounge comfortably in your acceleration couch flinging snots at the comms specialist. And if anyone or anything dangerous comes, your carrier's sensors would spot it from far enough for you to identify it, track, calculate its course, mark it as a target for point defense and go back to doing nothing.<br /><br />A laser beam out of hell would be a bit more unpleasant, but then again, that's what escorts are for - and in any case, you'll spot the beam carrier long before he actually gets to fire and thus have time to try and counter it somehow. And it's even worse for kinetic guns, since their projectiles are slow and can be shot down just as good.<br /><br />I probably am missing the point - 90% of the time fighters in space are there for studly/babelicious fighter jocks, not middle-aged starship commanders. But I tend to write about the latter. And it's not like they are middle-aged anyway, not by their time's standards.<br /><br />Not like the fighter pilots are all studly mavericks all the same.<br />----------------------------------<br /><br />Notes:<br /><br />1. Sometimes I really hate Russian. Did you know it doesn't distinguish between 'fuel' and 'propellant'? <br /><br />It doesn't. And it's ought to be confusing, especially in the context of nuke rocket engines. <br /><br />2. I think I deserve at least a few points for not referring to space military branch as a Navy, but as a Space Force, not calling spaceborne troops Marines(it's either Spacebornes, Espatiers, Drop Commandos, Raumsjaegers, what have you) and calling a spacecraft CO 'Commander' instead of 'Captain'.<br /><br />Although I still like naval ranks a bit too much, mostly because Army or Air Force ranks don't quite carry the same weight as Navy ones do. Plus a Major in command of a ship (or a General in command of a fleet) sounds... wrong. Many kinds of wrong. <br /><br />It's also oddly fitting that, in Russian, the synonym for Flight Commander is Crew Commander, while the Russian Flight Commander would be referred to as Mission Commander in NASA parlance.Люси Сорьюhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05568531226559819804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-65710587105802450822012-04-07T03:10:16.357-07:002012-04-07T03:10:16.357-07:00Oh cripes, it seems I won't be necroposting af...Oh cripes, it seems I won't be necroposting after all. Well it's something.<br /><br />First, I would concede with most points made in the discussion and the post itself; however, while the orbital gunship idea is sound enough, it is a real shame I can't use it, since 'gunship' in Russian only means a naval gun boat(and not an armed helicopter or a flying battleship like AC-130). Which, sadly, is far too big to be called a fighter per se, more like a corvette.<br /><br />I wonder how much the gun boat concept is different from a fighter IN SPACE, besides having a bit more crew. At least three universes I've seen to date pretty much treat them as the same(Honorverse, Sten series and that obscure Russian milSF series that I could barely bear to read through all the misogyny) - and well, being slightly bigger craft, they would translate better into space. <br /><br />A torpedo boat tender IN SPACE is not too different from an aircraft carrier IN SPACE, only carrying less craft since those craft would carry either more or bigger weaponry than smaller one-man fighters.<br /><br />Perhaps we could even pass them off as 'heavy fighters' of some sort of terminology made up by people who write bad Star Wars rip-offs.<br /><br />That brings us to the second point, namely on small craft and their, er, maneuverability. Now, I'm a bit pessimistic about fusion thermal drive capabilities(and my 'verse fighters naturally mount these, or they won't have transatmospheric capability, as is the case with VASIMR and its ilk), and I don't know how power they can dish out or how much acceleration they could provide, even for short periods.<br /><br />The problem with small craft is that they turn fast - faster than capital ships, at any rate. While rapid re-orientation is a plus, it is offset by their weaker drives that have to burn twice as long than capital ship drives to cancel the small craft's vector and actually change its direction. This would probably be a detriment to torch missile capabilities, insofar as you depend on them to pull wide turns chasing after their gone-by target.<br /><br />Capital ships, in my opinion, would be able to change course quicker than smaller craft, and for half the price in remass; but, being more massive - and longer - they would turn around for, like, forever, short of mounting another engine(and, thus, another reactor and another shadow shield and propellant tankage) in the nose of the ship. <br /><br />I wonder if I got it right.<br /><br />For that matter - and it's third - how much g's would space fighter pilots have to pull? They aren't pulling any sharp turns, so angular acceleration would be pretty negligible. Any hard braking, as opposed to corrections, would be done via turning the craft nozzle forward, so direction of thrust would remain the same. <br /><br />That leaves us with the questions of:<br /><br />how long would fighters sustain thrust?<br /><br /> and<br /><br />how much acceleration would their drives provide while thrusting?Люси Сорьюhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05568531226559819804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-30829523589075882422012-03-06T20:36:49.058-08:002012-03-06T20:36:49.058-08:00My bias remains that smaller combat spacecraft - w...My bias remains that smaller combat spacecraft - where 'small' is relative, and regardless of crew size including zero - would be mainly armed with missiles, because unlike lasers (or other beam weapons, or for that matter rail/coilguns), they don't need a major onboard power supply.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-22542059883157407482012-03-02T00:43:08.702-08:002012-03-02T00:43:08.702-08:00I have the following plans for a space fighter :
...I have the following plans for a space fighter :<br /><br />It should have long wings on the sides to radiate waste heat, and hold the spin cycles of the cyclotron, that empowers their main particle cannon.<br />On the front, lasers and interceptor missiles, on the frontal sides, manuevering thrusters.<br /><br />On the upper deck, it can hold a big lens, that refocuses their carrier's beams to the target.<br /><br />On the lower deck, magnetic claws to attach to the board or side of bigger ships.<br />They might hold a bigger life support unit, to convert it to an assault boat, although normally, corvettes hold more people.<br /><br />Propulsion : some kind of super-hot plasma thrusters, that operate rather in pulsed mode.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Fighter<br /><br />The destroyer Sea Fighter has mixed propulsion, diesel engines for cruise, and twin gas turbine engines, twin water jets to fast speeds. Fighters would only have the fast engines. (Or maybe a little ion engine for small course corrections. But definitally not for cruising.)<br /><br /><br />I think, the pilot could occupy an orb like place on the back of the ship, that could be filled with oxygen for manned missions, or coolant for unmanned missions.<br />/Or perhaps the pilot's life support unit should be held by the magnetic claws, to keep him away from the reactors?/TOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07714038528716438776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-1169572705577088992012-02-13T04:20:36.262-08:002012-02-13T04:20:36.262-08:00Well, sorry that i didnt read anything, but my opi...Well, sorry that i didnt read anything, but my opinion is :<br /><br />For orbital patrol, the fighters should be rather manned.<br />They should patrol on LEO, in the most populated area of space, where most things can happen, that requires quick reaction.<br /><br />You have to make serious decisions : you dont want, that a dumb machine opens fire on a luxury ship for the sin of fireworks, but you want immediate response in case of a real missile threat, however if a terrorist captures a civilian ship with hostages, you shouldnt just blow it up with your main cannon.<br />/You might just leave it, and if negotiations fail, you return with a stealth attack, you can contain your waste heat for a short time, and use some special microwave weapon or laser to snipe the terrorist's brain./<br /><br />You can have the following troubles with remote control in that case :<br />- if the controller unit is on LEO, it wont be much less vulnerable<br />- if it is not, horizont can give you trouble<br />- if you involve comm satellites, you increase the chance of hacking<br />- they can have spyes who give away your frequency, so they can jam remote control<br />- with a distance of 15.000 km, you have 1/10 second of light-lag, that can be bad, there are cases when you need immediate decision, that rather requires human thinkingTOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07714038528716438776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-5447740715625924612011-05-04T13:54:01.074-07:002011-05-04T13:54:01.074-07:00Welcome to the comment threads!
The one argument ...Welcome to the comment threads!<br /><br />The one argument in favor of big space warcraft might be that only such a vehicle could provide sufficient juice for a maximum power laser.<br /><br />And I wonder whether the actual battlecraft need a human crew, as opposed to putting the human in the loop somewhere out of weapon range of the enemy.<br /><br />The whole discussion is ongoing and evolving - see some of the recent posts on this blog!Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-85810747818661842242011-05-02T07:28:59.401-07:002011-05-02T07:28:59.401-07:00it seems to me that both the idea of large battles...it seems to me that both the idea of large battleships and fighters is unsound.<br />realistic space weapons seem to be as rule have the capacity to cause massive damage. In this situation a battleship seems just to easy to destroy very quickly possibly with a vastly smaller vessel. On the other hand fighters seem to be far to small to traverse the long distances present even in a planets immediate vicinity some sort of gunship that is heavily armed with a crew of three to ten seems a realistic idea. Though this may have problems of its own. these could be used in large groups. Even though several might be destroyed one would probably destroy the target. this would seem more reliable then putting alll your eggs in one basket. <br /><br />pgAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-88154193149288926842011-04-12T19:11:00.741-07:002011-04-12T19:11:00.741-07:00Hm. Seems the URL's scroll past the page but t...Hm. Seems the URL's scroll past the page but there is a SaberCard2.jpg and a SaberCard3.jpg.<br /><br />-MikeThaw the Immaculate Barbarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15214300786543795700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-17790453983490880622011-04-12T19:09:37.961-07:002011-04-12T19:09:37.961-07:00(No problem on the registered person thing. There ...(No problem on the registered person thing. There we go, rcovered my Google Account). Yeah I should probably give a bit more background. There's a it of alternate history going on. The "fictional Agena" is named after the real-world Agena upper stage but in my fictional alternate/near-future history, a company called Wild Blue Industries created a commercial launcher and named it the Agena after the old upper stage. They're basically my fictional version of SpaceX. <br /><br />The GINO was built in 1994 as a cheap alternative to another spacecraft I made, the YF-19A Saber (based on the X-20 DynaSoar), which turned out to be too expensive to produce. For my universe, the YF-19 was based on Shuttle technology, and when it proved to be too expensive, the USAF went for their backup plan, and the GINO is the result.<br /><br />Here's some "baseball cards" I made of the YF-19. I did these a couple of years before discovering your site:<br /><br />http://gallery.spellflight.com/albu<br />ms/Spacecraft/SaberCard1.jpg<br /><br />http://gallery.spellflight.com/albums/Spacecraft/SaberCard2.jpg<br /><br />http://gallery.spellflight.com/albums/Spacecraft/SaberCard3.jpgThaw the Immaculate Barbarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15214300786543795700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-83203135984885449262011-04-12T08:46:05.249-07:002011-04-12T08:46:05.249-07:00Welcome to the comment threads! No problem posting...Welcome to the comment threads! No problem posting to older threads, though they do risk not getting noticed.<br /><br />(I do encourage 'anonymous' posters to sign a name or handle. No huge thing, but it is easier to respond to someone with an identity.)<br /><br />The use of a Gemini-like capsule as the basis makes this look more like an alternate-history spacecraft than a near future one. I'm also a bit puzzled by your reference to the 'fictional Agena rocket,' since Agena was a very real upper stage. (For all I know, updated versions are still in service, but I associate the name with the early space age.)<br /><br />All of that said, it looks like a believable 1970 era military spacecraft, with a probable mission of armed inspection.<br /><br />I don't know that I've ever before seen a proposal to mount a Browning on a spacecraft! I can't think of any reason it wouldn't work ... though you'd probably need special vacuum lubricants for it to work very long.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-79708765579407545742011-04-11T19:15:58.724-07:002011-04-11T19:15:58.724-07:00My appologies if I've necro posted but I recen...My appologies if I've necro posted but I recently discovered Rocketpunk Manifesto and its various discussions, including this one on realistic space fighters. <br /><br />I've been working on a space fighter off and on for awhile now. Though a bit out of date now, here is my idea for a near-future gunship, the Mk II Blue Gemini (known as the Gemini In Name Only, GINO). <br /><br />http://www.spellflight.com/WIPS/GINO.png<br /><br />From bottom to top you can see its propulsion module, service module command/re-entry module, and the tactical module. <br /><br />The tactical module is launched on a Delta II rocket and the GINO flies on my fictional Agena rocket. The propulsion module is the Agena's upper stage and there is plenty of delta-v for maneuvering. <br /><br />The gunship is manned for situations requiring human decision making, and if the situation is too dangerous, the GINO undocks the tactical module and flies it remotely, turning GINO into a mini space control ship. This is particularly helpful to have the GINO act as the SCS since comm sats are likely the first casualty of orbital war. Plus, GINO has lots of delta-v as I mentioned to push that tactical module around. <br /><br />The TM is armed with Space Intercept Missiles (SIM-1A Python) and a good old-fashion M2 Browning "Ma Deuce" in spaaaaace! It may not actually work in spaaaaace but hey, it's science fiction! :)<br /><br />And yes, you could simply fit the tactical module to the propulsion module and fly it that way, but then you'd have to rely on TDRSS sats when the craft is on the other side of the planet (and I am assuming that the US doesn't have global tracking stations for budget reasons since comm sats are doing the job well).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-63428245434421525532010-10-05T06:02:58.284-07:002010-10-05T06:02:58.284-07:00llTurbo10khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03052157965564640932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-30989212448411900832010-10-05T05:47:44.055-07:002010-10-05T05:47:44.055-07:00Ressurecting?
Damn bookmarking.Ressurecting?<br />Damn bookmarking.Turbo10khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03052157965564640932noreply@blogger.com