tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post5965858850774757468..comments2024-03-28T00:36:19.403-07:00Comments on Rocketpunk Manifesto: Space Fighters, NotRickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comBlogger394125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-56959747740371256622020-08-28T21:39:12.548-07:002020-08-28T21:39:12.548-07:00Link exchange is nothing else but it is just placi...Link exchange is nothing else but it is just placing the other person's weblog link on your page at appropriate place and other person will also do same in support of you. Guess what the secret is on my page <a href="https://www.hammondelec.com" rel="nofollow"> สล็อต</a><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-55406385795335849752017-05-30T19:47:55.032-07:002017-05-30T19:47:55.032-07:00The short answer is a quibble - but a big, importa...The short answer is a quibble - but a big, important quibble: Close air support calls for atmospheric aircraft. Even if they are exo-atmospheric, deployed from orbit and recovering back to orbit (the latter being really, <i>really</i> difficult), the performance qualities needed for the close support mission would not make them well suited to fighting in space.<br /><br />Arguably it would still be legitimate to call them 'space fighters', but they would not fit the popular usage of the term, which generally implies space combat.<br /><br />Having said that, see also a later post here, Space Fighters Reconsidered. <br /><br />http://www.rocketpunk-manifesto.com/2010/05/space-fighters-reconsidered.html<br /><br />There I argue for the plausibility of a class of small spacecraft I call 'gunships', suited to close support missions <i>in space</i>. But I give them a different name because their missions and characteristics really don't have much in common with 'space fighters' as portrayed in Star Wars et al.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-62637494379227943992017-05-26T08:22:45.736-07:002017-05-26T08:22:45.736-07:00wow it's like everyone here chooses to ignore ...wow it's like everyone here chooses to ignore military science. the fact is that space fighters will be critical if for no reason other than to perform CAS during planetary operations. missiles and drones would be incapable of performing such missions in any universe where physics is a thing.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09777146661245139809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-76754412374918914452015-12-13T20:37:12.128-08:002015-12-13T20:37:12.128-08:00I have been researching this topic for some time n...I have been researching this topic for some time now, nice to see others trying to figure this out! Through my research, however, I noted that the same technology that would allow us to expand into space would probably also have huge effects on our socio-economic and political systems. Assuming Moore's Law eventually plateaus off, how would we deal with the immense technology at our disposal? The ramifications of super-intelligent AI and bio-technical augmentation on society would be huge!<br />Has anyone here been figuring out how basic "sci-fi" society would be constructed? I know this is a little off topic, but I figure we can predict future warfare strategies better if we have a foundation for the civilizations we're referring to.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-35133665380187453892015-11-18T07:27:49.078-08:002015-11-18T07:27:49.078-08:00Wouldn't it make more sense for the "spac...Wouldn't it make more sense for the "space fighters" to be something more like drones, instead? Short range, with limited tactical ordinance and remotely piloted from a larger ship with plenty of armor and heavier weapons. It seems like a logical extension of the current drone technology and usage, to me. Imagine, if you will, a row of "cockpits", like the trainers in Space:Above and Beyond, if you all remember that show, but linked to drones and all in the belly of a large battle cruiser type of ship. It makes sense.Network Geekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15544125035134856637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-77757541715188057992015-11-04T22:52:32.078-08:002015-11-04T22:52:32.078-08:00Your Lancer concept here is very interesting. Woul...Your Lancer concept here is very interesting. Would it be possible to have a human controller Lance-craft surrounded by a swarm of AI controlled drones, the drones working as suicide shields and radar confusion? The drones held in place using some kind of EM field and small thrusters for maneuvering? This follows the Zeroth law of space combat, but still uses AI to cut down attrition lossesDaninoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-19311184291125865342015-02-01T19:48:49.612-08:002015-02-01T19:48:49.612-08:00"Yes, the fighter is fast and maneuverable - ..."Yes, the fighter is fast and maneuverable - but not faster than a laser beam" lasers work by concentrating energy(light) into a beam to heat or similar effect an object, but with the exception of the highest intensity lasers are not instant kill. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-9752992716640954322014-12-13T11:10:28.756-08:002014-12-13T11:10:28.756-08:00Pinnacles : due to light-lag, and finite telescope...Pinnacles : due to light-lag, and finite telescope resolution, i think it makes sense to advance a pinnacle if there are really light hour distances.<br /><br />I created a setting with prolonged free for all war in the asteroid belt. Since the goal is to capture the valuable mines, missions where cover and hiding do exists, are far from marginal.<br />There are also a good number of asymmetric battles, like commerce raid.<br />So i think, fighters that can attack beyond cover and reusable do make sense.<br />If there is already a 100km/s closing speed, 104 or 110km/s doesnt change that much, fighters also use coilguns and laser jammers against point range defence.<br />(Lasers, if you decrease distance to 100km from 10.000, a one meter mirror can focus as precisely as a 100m mirror from the bigger distance.)TOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07714038528716438776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-34400396887202102722014-12-10T07:58:49.562-08:002014-12-10T07:58:49.562-08:00Perhaps you have an honor obsessed human culture o...Perhaps you have an honor obsessed human culture or alien race. For them, locking a pilot into a rocket propelled torpedo with a fragmentation bomb or two strapped to it might make sense. <br /><br />I personally think the "pinnace" idea is rather silly. Wouldn't the missile carrier simply use radar or other sensors to select and fire upon targets?Augustusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-90192680396938825482013-12-18T07:30:57.618-08:002013-12-18T07:30:57.618-08:00I imagine that if a fusion reactor's plasma co...I imagine that if a fusion reactor's plasma containment systems damaged by enemy fire, the superhot plasma gets out and incinerates the crew and electronics of the ship...<br /><br />My latest speculations how to make space battles at least a tiny bit like cool operatic stuff.<br /><br />http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=721385TOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07714038528716438776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-12330383868136791812013-12-16T12:48:13.277-08:002013-12-16T12:48:13.277-08:00I started reading the later comments on this post ...I started reading the later comments on this post & am not finished, but I have some comments of my own on some comments from well after the original post, but still a few years old.<br /><br />The Different Anonymous August 28, 2009 at 7:58 PM<br />"I haven't heard about it. Why have a missile with a FUSION drive and a FUSION warhead? When the missile gets there, just turn off the <br /><br />controls and let the drive go BOOM"<br /><br />Nuclear bombs don't work like that. If you don't do things just right a fission bomb will blow itself apart when only a minute <br /><br />fraction of the fissile material has fissioned & you get an explosion not much bigger than that from a similar mass of chemical <br /><br />explosive, ie: a fizzle. A sufficiently badly designed & operated reactor can be made to run away like at Chernobyl, but similarly the <br /><br />fission energy released before it wrecked itself was a tiny fraction of the energy in the fuel & at least as much damage came from the <br /><br />graphite fire.<br /><br />Since no one has made a practical fusion reactor I suppose you could handwave the idea that a working fusion reactor could be made to <br /><br />explode, but the proposed designs all feed modest amounts of fuel into the reactor at any time those designs couldn't explode all <br /><br />their remaining fuel like a bomb either.<br /><br /><br />jollyreaper February 10, 2010 at 10:06 PM<br />"Yet here we are today utterly dependent upon oil but not starting crash programs to get off of it."<br />I recently ran across a fact relevent to why that is. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_the_Earth then click on the name of the guy who provided the funding & note where his wealth came from. What is good for the general public isn't necessarily what is good for the people with wealth & power.<br /><br />I think most of the people reading this blog already know that the anti-nuclear talking points are at most deliberately misleading half truths, but the above noted fact says why the BS seldom gets questioned.Jim Baergnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-43216232831975039292013-03-15T15:46:33.292-07:002013-03-15T15:46:33.292-07:00Ok, jolly you convinced me to continue. :)
"...Ok, jolly you convinced me to continue. :)<br /><br /><br />"But why would you go any smaller? "<br />"In reality, a space Sidewinder would be a one-hit kill." <br /><br />Well i can imagine something like using your lasers to take out each other's sensor arrays (including the majority of incoming missiles, i have doubts they will be one shot-one kill. yes if they hit, the target is gone, the point is to prevent that they, or their shrapnels hit) , telescopes, focusing mirrors, the most vulnerable stuff, then you have to go closer to hit with a coilgun with the remaining few backup sensors.<br />Maybe it is unlikely... but my point is, the more advanced the defence systems, to closer you have to get.<br />(Otherwise i said in W40k, that if a missile really hits, not just a few shrapnels scratch it, then even a kilometers long ship with warp shields and stuff like that is seriously damaged at least)<br /><br />"So aerial tankers IN SPACE!"<br /><br />Well, i would rather call the bigger ones mobile bases, but something like that. :)<br /><br /><br />" Bomber, gunship and AWACS rolled into one. "<br /><br />I can agree, even the smaller ones could drop kinetic bombs, have pretty good sensors, and fine missiles.TOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07714038528716438776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-12811507700103038602013-03-15T15:15:05.778-07:002013-03-15T15:15:05.778-07:00>Maybe not thousands kilometers, but yes large ...>Maybe not thousands kilometers, but yes large distances.<br /><br />But why would you go any smaller? What are your fighters, WWI biplanes in space, with pilots shooting each other with their laser revolvers (which were totally a thing in reality)?<br /><br />>I thought really smart attack craft can even protect itself from smaller interceptor missiles, (anti missile mines) a certain degree, i also think in W40k, average human missiles not 100% jamming and decoy proof.<br /><br />In 40k, maybe. But 40k is the modern edgy SW and should not be considered seriously.<br /><br />In reality, a space Sidewinder would be a one-hit kill. Two if you're really lucky. <br /><br />>Smaller orbital craft can be operated from land bases, but it is cheaper to return to an orbital station or mothership for refuel, rearm, repair.<br /><br />So aerial tankers IN SPACE!<br /><br />>The last one can regroup both orbital and surface (aerial, aerospace) forces between colonies, and launch them after an initial bombardment softened up defences enough to get an acceptable mortality rate.<br /><br />...combined with AWACS? <br /><br />Well, that's pretty much my idea of any space warship, period. Bomber, gunship and AWACS rolled into one. <br /><br />Air Force guys would be forced to adopt at least -some- naval practice, though. Besides, Colonels and Generals sound awkward in space.Люси Сорьюhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05568531226559819804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-56484973704513183982013-03-15T15:02:38.410-07:002013-03-15T15:02:38.410-07:00I've been a long critic of BSG for many reason...I've been a long critic of BSG for many reasons. It basically all boils down to they had no idea what they were doing, made it up as they went, and created a really stupid story with no redeeming qualities and by that I mean even the bits that were good were ruined by association. <br /><br />B5, on the other hand, feels even smarter with rewatch. While not all the parts and pieces went as planned, some pretty fancy footwork made most of it fit. The experience is so rewarding. <br /><br />The Centauri seem like clowns? The narn like bullies? You think you have the measure of the situation? Keep watching and don't read any wiki entries until you finish. <br /><br />BSG had a higher production value and good actors but it was just destroyed by maggot-brained writing. Terminally stupid, ignorant, unforgivable writing. jollyreaperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05673007647719726846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-14175985309725944382013-03-15T14:24:06.189-07:002013-03-15T14:24:06.189-07:00"If your idea of a dogfight takes place at 50..."If your idea of a dogfight takes place at 5000 kilometers between both participants, then sure it can be called that."<br /><br />Maybe not thousands kilometers, but yes large distances.<br /><br />"There's not much you can improve on missile guidance even now, and I doubt it'd change even in the grim darkness of the far future where there is no logic."<br /><br />I thought really smart attack craft can even protect itself from smaller interceptor missiles, (anti missile mines) a certain degree, i also think in W40k, average human missiles not 100% jamming and decoy proof. <br />(Well IMHO there are no perfect attack and defence system, but i guess they would laugh on a present day advanced missile, radar control, here goes the EMP, heat seeker, IR laser, you try to follow jamming, we launch a decoy that reflects the jamming laser to you, you try to direct it with a laser marker, sorry, you cant change the frequency and encoding fast enough to stop us from generating hundred false signals... etc<br />Of course i can still hardly save certain things in W40k, i really not the fan of robotic troops, but using drones for recon is perfectly acceptable to me... well the Admech uses skull servos. However it is also a part of the world, that average human life matters next to nothing. )<br /><br />"Except that bombers usually don't need a carrier"<br /><br />Smaller orbital craft can be operated from land bases, but it is cheaper to return to an orbital station or mothership for refuel, rearm, repair.<br />The last one can regroup both orbital and surface (aerial, aerospace) forces between colonies, and launch them after an initial bombardment softened up defences enough to get an acceptable mortality rate.<br /><br /><br />It is good to update my knowledge on Hind, although i think in space, it is easier to operate with mission oriented payload.<br /><br /><br />Thanks Jolly i think i will give B5 another chance, i hope not every characters are that stupid.<br />(I began to hate BSG, how could be the humans that stupid, it is so ugly to kill mass produced clones with a virus... but we give lethal threats to unwilling workers... )TOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07714038528716438776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-40009410794338823502013-03-15T05:37:00.210-07:002013-03-15T05:37:00.210-07:00Babylon 5 is excellent. Finish the first season. I...Babylon 5 is excellent. Finish the first season. If you don't like it then, you won't like the rest. But it's a fantastic show. jollyreaperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05673007647719726846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-69702910030635566052013-03-15T03:24:32.155-07:002013-03-15T03:24:32.155-07:00>But dogfight isnt likely in space maybe if you...>But dogfight isnt likely in space maybe if you rather want to make a ship surrender, and take roughly the same course, to deal with the defender units one by one.<br /><br />If your idea of a dogfight takes place at 5000 kilometers between both participants, then sure it can be called that. Really, it's more Soviet Naval Aviation strategic bomber ops IN SPACE than USN carrier ops IN SPACE.<br /><br />Except that bombers usually don't need a carrier, and what would you land them on anyway, Habakkuk?<br /><br />>I thought a little bit about, maybe someone in the future want to remake Star Wars to be at least a very small degree hard, like they did with Batman and Dredd. Against an artificial moon 3000 units would be a little bit more realistic... after 3000 anti-proton missiles hit it...<br />>Then TIE fighters could take off from inside docking bays to intercept enemies took an orbital flight path just above the surface...<br /><br />Star Wars can hardly be saved even by most radical means.<br /><br />It won't even have USN carrier ops IN SPACE that nBSG has. <br /><br />This generation's penultimate space opera is still Mass Effect, though, and I'm still amazed how they show their work from time to time. Of course, then they shit all over it and dreadnoughts have decks parallel to the drive axis, contrary to what was stated in the Codex.<br /><br />>I'm storytelling Warhammer40k i said the tau (who dont despise advanced computers) use advanced drone torpedos in deep space, but use fighters (mostly drones, lead by some manned squdron leaders if really fast decision making required) for orbital combat and secure, pacify captured worlds.<br /><br />Imperium's torpedoes were pretty smart, too. There's not much you can improve on missile guidance even now, and I doubt it'd change even in the grim darkness of the far future where there is no logic.<br /><br />Only macrocannon shells and lances are probably cheaper anyway. <br /><br />Weber levels of missile spam are probably impossible, even at spitting distance with shipborne ICBM equivalents. And even in Honorverse missiles with on-board reactors are a major novelty.<br /><br />>I changed "bombers" to corvettes, that are Hind copter like attack/transport vessels.<br /><br />Hind wasn't that good as a transport, to the point when pilots refused to fly transport missions. Evac was done by Mi-8s anyway.<br /><br />I'd expect boarding/inspection craft in space to carry side-mounted weapons, but dedicated attackers, if they appear, are better off ditching passengers altogether.Люси Сорьюhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05568531226559819804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-33267382937925997992013-03-14T13:09:48.975-07:002013-03-14T13:09:48.975-07:00Hi.
I also read, leaders of US. Air Force are ra...Hi. <br /><br />I also read, leaders of US. Air Force are rather skeptical about drones, it is one thing to do recon, bomb down some guerilla/terrorist, and another thing to defeat a real enemy...<br /><br />But dogfight isnt likely in space maybe if you rather want to make a ship surrender, and take roughly the same course, to deal with the defender units one by one.<br /><br />I thought a little bit about, maybe someone in the future want to remake Star Wars to be at least a very small degree hard, like they did with Batman and Dredd. Against an artificial moon 3000 units would be a little bit more realistic... after 3000 anti-proton missiles hit it...<br />Then TIE fighters could take off from inside docking bays to intercept enemies took an orbital flight path just above the surface...<br /><br />About B5, i watched the first episode, i didnt liked it... are Centaurians that stupid, it is their racial identity that even an ambassador cannot control his rage??<br /><br />I'm storytelling Warhammer40k i said the tau (who dont despise advanced computers) use advanced drone torpedos in deep space, but use fighters (mostly drones, lead by some manned squdron leaders if really fast decision making required) for orbital combat and secure, pacify captured worlds.<br />I changed "bombers" to corvettes, that are Hind copter like attack/transport vessels.TOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07714038528716438776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-70387406774829301392013-03-14T09:45:44.344-07:002013-03-14T09:45:44.344-07:00Speaking of which, somebody mentioned something ab...Speaking of which, somebody mentioned something about Babylon-5 Starfuries running patrol missions, which sounds like a rather tempting idea (and my idea of a space fighter is closer to a Starfury than to an X-wing, except form, probably - although that's a credible justification for wings IN SPACE!), but alas, I haven't watched the actual show, so can anybody explain in more detail? It may convince me to finally give up and give B5 a try.<br /><br />On the last note, sure you can say your 'fighter' is really a 'gunship', which is something I can definitely imagine Space Marines (here called Espatiers, Orbitjaegers, Spaceborne Troops (much like Soviet/Russian VDV than US Army Airborne) or Space Force Commandos) flying these kind of craft. With inevitable attack gunships appearing as an alternative to Space Hueys, although I'm more tempted to compare them to a Harrier Jump Jet. <br /><br />Or some Optimistic Near Future™ reusable SSTO shuttlecraft, if comparisons with aircraft are -that- of a sore point.Люси Сорьюhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05568531226559819804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-72413522325676262552013-03-14T09:45:20.560-07:002013-03-14T09:45:20.560-07:00So the thread that refuses to die STILL goes on? C...So the thread that refuses to die STILL goes on? Clocking six years here, people. I also managed to read through the whole of it, so I either deserve a medal or an achievement unlock.<br /><br />I'm wondering how much of the space fighter hate is grounded in knee-jerk reaction to Star Wars and BSG fame. Seeing how often X-Wings and Vipers get mentioned, it can give you that idea. Of course, it's not like I don't take potshots at SW and BSG (who doesn't now?), but my reasons have more to do with the way space fighters are portrayed (as WWII piston prop gunfighters instead of GLORIOUS JET POWERED GUIDED MISSILE MASTER RACE I much prefer, one curiously absent from -any- sci-fi) rather than with space fighters themselves.<br /><br />That said, if we're discussing chemical engines, then I'm in agreement that manned chemfuel fighters make increasingly little sense. Even in an orbital environment, where we're better off with some future X-37 descendants.<br /><br />I'm more sceptical at the capabilities of chemfuel missiles, at least anti-ship missiles, although at 15 000 km (.5 ls), I suppose, they could work fine. I'm more accustomed to half-second ranges, though, but my techlevel is similarly advanced. And even then, I'm sceptical as to whether it's cost-effective to throw expensive fusion engines in missiles, or even unmanned missile buses.<br /><br />Of course, an ideal fighter (which is supposedly something like ideal gas) would still have the option of flying by remote. Possibly, if we do have manned fighters, the drone and the manned option would be interchangeable in a single hull. A slightly more interesting example would be a single manned fighter leading several unmanned ones in an anti-ship strike mission (read: drift to missile launch/enemy PD standoff range, launch missiles, flip 180 degrees and start burning back home as fast as possible), but I'm unclear how much utility that would have (besides shortening reaction times -for drone operators-). A more pure drone example would be drone fighters defending the carrier/battleship/battle group from incoming missiles/fighters, with the much shorter range allowing the drones to be operated remotely without any lookout/in-situ control aircraft (which might not be required at all). Of course, here in atmosphere dogfighting is pretty hard for drones, and will be (at least according to my friend who works in aerospace design - and I'm rather tempted to believe him than the crowd that reads Atomic Rockets like the Gospel), which is why modern UCAVs run ground strike missions for now on, but presumably it's easier to launch smaller missiles at bad bigger missiles in space. Not too much place for dogfighting here, either, just fly in, launch missiles, fly out. Flying out required because a miniaturized fusion engine (very much on the fringes of possible, but hardly breaking the laws of physics, and even then the drone fighter might look more like a Backfire bomber than a Reaper) is presumably too expensive to lose each time you need some ordinance thrown out there.<br /><br />I'll still have my manned aerospace fighters, though! <br /><br />*cackles madly*Люси Сорьюhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05568531226559819804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-76054699373347434682013-01-05T20:13:22.496-08:002013-01-05T20:13:22.496-08:00A belated welcome to the comment threads!
Your me...A belated welcome to the comment threads!<br /><br />Your mention of naval helicopters is interesting! Not quite the same argument, but see my post <a href="http://www.rocketpunk-manifesto.com/2010/05/space-fighters-reconsidered.html" rel="nofollow">Space Fighters, Reconsidered</a>.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-70027140911103820032012-12-12T16:32:00.460-08:002012-12-12T16:32:00.460-08:00I write fighters as being similar to modern-day na...I write fighters as being similar to modern-day naval helicopters. They're not a great deal faster than the ship itself, but carry excellent sensors and decent weaponry. <br /><br />Additionally, they can be fired off an electromagnetic catapult to grant a velocity advantage. In an F-14-sized fighter utilizing a nuclear-thermal powerplant and liquid hydrogen reaction mass, ~25km/sec of delta-v is completely feasible and tactically relevant.<br /><br />In terms of tactical employment, fighters are rare outside a carrier battle group. Usually, a flight or so is carried on the command ship of a capital-ship squadron. They serve as scouts, missile platforms, and general support craft for assault transports. Not quite X-wings, but it works.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />SouthernPhantomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13125140883320534861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-24643815314935105072012-10-01T09:27:01.982-07:002012-10-01T09:27:01.982-07:00TOM:
Well threads are protected by images that mos...TOM:<br /><i>Well threads are protected by images that most programs cant read, i wondered if a difficult environment can be reproduced by jammers that floods sensors and cameras... still, if a man has to only recognize the targets, and plan the correct course of action, it can be still solved with remote control.</i><br />I don't think that the situation is quite the same. The drone is not autonomous, so the human can do target recognition (even granting the efficacy of EW in space, which I'm none too sure about). The computer would control the pointing of the laser (or what have you) wither or not there was a human onboard, so there's no gain on that front.<br /><br /><i>Immediate decisions mostly needed in more civil situations, like maintain peace and order, and that as an important thing in modern warfare ( see Irak and Afganistan) i think that is a thing that sceptics miss when they say motherships arent viable. </i><br />Absolutely. Even then, the light-lag would only really be important in the equivalent of aerial combat (which won't happen). Human decision lag dominates at the scales under discussion. And it's not like everybody won't be used to some amount of light lag, anyway.Byronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07778896782683765138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-19729731042346405442012-10-01T00:51:11.921-07:002012-10-01T00:51:11.921-07:00Hi again everyone.
Personally, i had to give up ...Hi again everyone. <br /><br />Personally, i had to give up my refusal of drones, both Byron and Locki was quite convincing (even if a man on the exact spot means some advantage in a pure shoot and kill situation, will it worth to sacrifice good pilots? Locki said drone operators have a higher suicide rate than normal soldiers, so remotely piloted half automatic drones wont be terminators)<br />Also space is a simple environment, you dont need HAL9000 for automation.<br /><br />Well threads are protected by images that most programs cant read, i wondered if a difficult environment can be reproduced by jammers that floods sensors and cameras... still, if a man has to only recognize the targets, and plan the correct course of action, it can be still solved with remote control.<br /><br />( In operatic setting you can have robot rebellion, but you can also have FTL comm... although they should rather like to telegraph than wifi, but from close range they can be still reliable. Also droning dont sacrifice much story elements. )<br /><br />Immediate decisions mostly needed in more civil situations, like maintain peace and order, and that as an important thing in modern warfare ( see Irak and Afganistan) i think that is a thing that sceptics miss when they say motherships arent viable. TOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07714038528716438776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-36093872394389909822012-09-30T23:02:58.264-07:002012-09-30T23:02:58.264-07:00Greg:
1) Drop a load of water between your battlez...Greg:<br /><i>1) Drop a load of water between your battlezone and the transmitter. Water vapor crystalizes into ice. Ice reflects/refracts the laser, and the control signal is lost. (Also a good defense against weapons-grade lasers).</i><br />No, it doesn't work against high-power lasers. The water crystals will sublimate anyway in the vacuum, and a high-power laser will vaporize them very quickly. And getting the crystals between all of my other ships and the drone would be a good trick, if you could do it reliably.<br /><br /><i>2) Flood the battlezone with laser light of your own. The receivers on the drone can't pick out what is their control signal and what is laser "noise". This also means that on many vectors, an outgoing laser has a chance to get "lost" in the ambient light emitted by the primary.</i><br />I addressed exactly this in the paper I linked to. Won't work.<br /><br /><i>3) LOS. What do you do if your opponent is on the other side of a major obstacle (ie, a planet). This also applies to radio, btw.</i><br />I believe they're called relays.<br /><br /><i>1) time lag (again). Even at light speed, it's still a ~3 second round trip for an Earth-Moon distance signal. </i><br />You (or anyone else) has yet to prove that said lag will be militarily significant, at least to the point of outweighing the advantages in cost (and therefore in numbers) that drones allow. If a drone is 90-95% as effective as a manned warship for 75% of the cost, which one do you go with.<br /><br /><i>2) That's a problem when your reciever can at any moment be forced to take an evasive action that puts it (assuming it's only travelling at Earth orbital speed) 30km+ off it's projected flight path. Add in the fact that by the time you even know you've lost signal lock, that receiver may have changed heading and/or speed again.</i><br />You're confusing ships/aircraft and spacecraft. Any evasive action will be limited to a G or so. At 3 seconds lag, that translates to a displacement from its predicted position of 45m. I expect the comm spot will be substantially larger. And this assumes that the evasion was unanticipated. <br /><br /><i><br />"Dumb" computers are excellent analyzers and linear thinkers. That's also their shortcoming. Non-AI computers cannot think. They cannot act outside the prescribed boundaries of their programming. They cannot be "inspired" or deceptive. They cannot engage in either strategy or tactics.<br /><br />They are limited to being reactive. They cannot act proactively, and are slow to adjust to rapidly change, as they have to start their process or analysis and reaction from square one every time the situation changes. In short, they are inflexible, incapable of non-linear thinking.</i><br />You're looking at this all wrong. The drone is not operating independently. There is a commander that is within a few light-seconds. He is the one who does the thinking. The drone receives commands like "turn to 174,+34, thrust at .1G, and open fire with primary laser on target 3." It would receive the same commands if he was onboard, just a bit sooner. It would also cost significantly more.<br />As previously mentioned, see <a href="http://www.rocketpunk-manifesto.com/2011/03/space-warfare-xiii-human-factor.html" rel="nofollow">Space Warfare XIII</a> for more details.<br /><br />Also, your use of Earth-moon distances is a bit of a strawman. My usual proposal is more like .5 ls.Byronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07778896782683765138noreply@blogger.com