Hey guys
I found this article very interesting.
It was a nice little article to read
interesting, but certain things were innaccurate.
Mostly the "spacefighter" parts. A 1-2 man space "fighter" in the way an F-14/-15/-16/-18 is a "fighter" are useless in space because all spacecraft work in the same environment (the only difference is if a spaceship can enter and exit atmosphere; that is, land/ascend on/from a planet).
Effectively, what we consider "fighters" are never going to be in space. Not when a missile will do the job for a much cheaper cost because- a missile bus (re: missile that shoots missiles) is cheaper than a manned "fighter" (re: 1-2 vehicle that shoots missiles). Both do the same thing, but both have far different capabilities. A disposable missile bus (inherently it would be disposable) will only need enough delta-v (change in velocity, in other words propellant+fuel*) to get to the target, shoot its missile payload, and likely attempt to impact the target.
In contrast, a manned fighter needs 4 TIMES the delta-v a missile bus needs. Why? A missile bus just needs to get to the target, deploy payload, and maybe try to impact the target. A fighter needs to be recovered. But why 4 TIME as much? Simple- you need the delta-v to 1) get there, 2) cancel your inbound vector (assumes "deep space" or interplanetary combat), 3) some extra delta-v for maneuvering in combat, and 4) some delta-v to get to a rendezvous point with the "carrier".
And all that is without the accounting the extra mass of life support systems and similar.
*Fuel and Propellant are only rarely the same. Fuel is what is used by a propulsion device to create energy, Propellant is what actually works the magic of Newton's Law of Action&Reaction. Pretty much only chemical rockets (like firecrackers, backyard rocket kits, the Space Shuttle, Saturn V) have a fuel/propellant that is the same. Think of it this way- in an ion or plasma thruster (you know, the one that uses a lot of electricity and glows a pretty blue color) uses an electrical power source (like a nuclear reactor or maybe solar panels) for "fuel" (the power source generates the needed energy), and a typically gaseous propellant like Xenon (ion drives) or Argon (plasma drives).
Nuclear propulsion is very similar except- in fission based systems, Uranium, Thorium, or Plutonium can be used for fuel (energy-creation for the drive), while water or hydrogen are the preferred propellants. Fusion propulsion uses either deuterium/tritium, deuterium/deuterium, or helium, boron, or other low-mass atoms that combine very easily (in various combinations) to create energy. Fusion and Fission based propulsion systems use very similar propellants.
Yeah - In my Starfleet command game I had to rewrite the shiplist to eliminate fighters and PFC's because I find the illogic of them so annoying. The only reasonable rationale for a 'fighter' in space is as a way to extend the reach of an immobile platform, space station, et al.
Jonnan
well, I can find a rationale for a fighter.
A ship that is air/space. Basically, a "fighter" launched from space that can then enter atmosphere and strike ground targets (this is a psychological effect thing, and it may be more economical to preserve ship munitions for ship-to-ship/-station engagements), and then ascend back into space.
That, or the "Fast Attack Craft", used to investigate possible resources and defend them from light assaults. FACs could also be useful for striking small or weak orbital targets (like communications satellites) while the big ships take out the "starbases" and orbiting defender's ships.
EDIT: also, Jonnan- nice avatar. Very funny. 2 thumbs up man!
Well, the article, like allmost every article on space combat I've seen so far, missed out on one really important point. Namely this: how will space combat look like? Short, devastating, and what's left of the human race won't care much about it since they'll be reduced to eating cockroaches.
If we ever start fighting in space, it'll be the last fight of our race. Space, as I like to think of it, is the universal buffer separating the primitive races from the enlightened interstellar community. It may be possible to have an aggressive species wage wars in local interplanetary space, but even that would allmost certainly spell doom for their civilization since all you basically need is to drop a few asteroids from orbit and its bye bye home planet.
The level of technology required to become a star-faring civilization ensures that only those sufficiently advanced and illuminated can posess such power and survive it.
So I'm afraid that Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica or Star Trek are impossible scenarios, not because of their unrealistic approach to physics or whatnot, but because of the fundamental logical flaw in the concept of interstellar warfare.
Right. So when the evil alien Conquerers from the next galaxy over feel the need to expand because they were agressive enough to take out the goody-goody There's-no-war-in-space-because-we-can-nuke-them-back-to-the-stone-age races before they could nuke the hostile homeworld, we should just roll over to them because in the thousands of years since any species has had any combat experience we've all grown soft and squishy.
Also if a galactic nation has the ability to wage war on another, would that not require many worlds in many systems producing the raw materials needed to fund the military? Wouldn't destroying their homeworld only push them to fight longer and harder? And if they were planning to go to war with another nation, would they reveal sensitive information like comm-channels and the location of major construction, political, and economic planets and systems? Even if you had been at peace with them, and suddenly decided to invade for reasons unknown, why would you give away the position of any critical outpost or comm frequency?
But that could just be my imagination running wild.
Regarding Fighters:
In the short term, no there probably will not be some sort of "Fighter" or low manpower fighting vehicle, but as Anti-Missile defences get better - be it ECM or small guns shooting them down or what have you - there will need to be changes in the basic thinking of how to go about engaging hostile ships. Sure it would be a little more expensive than flooding the area with missiles, but with a manned craft - or even an unmanned drone - you have a much higher chance of one of your high payload weapons reaching the target and doing damage. Fighters will become more useful simply because they can navigate to weak points in the enemy defences -engines, commtowers, whatever- and they would pay for themselves over the course of several engagements because of the fact they are reuseable, and not one-shot deals like the Missile Bus.
that was a good read! thanks.
DoomBringer90- you misunderstand the nature of the Missile Bus. The perfection of its design is the fact that it IS guided, it CAN deliver ordnance to the target effectively, and that the Missile Bus itself can function as a weapon.
That is the elegance of the design. The main problem with fighters is- they are either too small to carry a meaningful amount of delta-v (fuel+propellant for travel/combat/whatever), and they generally are incapable of carrying the sheer amount of ordnance payload i.e. destructive potential of a disposable Missile Bus.
A Missile Bus can do everything you say a fighter would be able to do, because the Missile Bus doesn't need to be disposable. Its disposability is a result of it making the weapon MORE EFFECTIVE.
A fighter will not pay for itself over a "few" engagements. On the contrary, I would consider the fact that a small 1-2 man combat-only craft would simply create a deficit in military finances. A fighter must be recovered, and as you seem to imply, must carry a living breathing pilot. A Missile Bus can sustain much higher accelerations/decelerations, maneuvers, and can impact the target without loosing to much of an investment (depends on the Bus's cost).
The biggest problem with fighters is the simple fact that they are going to be more expensive by a significant margin than a simple AI or remotely operated Missile Bus, that flies to the enemies' location, deploys ordnance, and then attempts to impact the enemy.
The perfect example of the accuracy of your argument is this- TLAM&F-18. A lot of beginning opposition to the TLAM (Tomahawk Land Attack Missile) was that it took away a lot of the purpose of F-18 strike ops. If they could build a TLAM with the range of the F-18, do you think they would still build F-18s? Probably not, since the TLAM can do the same job for cheaper, and its safer for the person performing the strike.
Ultimately, the one with the advantage will be the one that can do it with greater performance and do it CHEAPER. Also, an unmanned drone is the same thing as a Missile Bus. The only difference is the name (a Missile Bus can be reusable). If you still aren't sure, I refer you to http://projectrho.com. Go under the tab "Atomic Rockets" from the drop-down menu. Enter that sub-site, and look for the sections on fighters.
EDIT: as for you response to ManSh00ter's post on the feasability of war, I must say that I concur.
P.S.- Ask me what I think of "something else" being out "there".
I have no problem with anything you have said except for this. The TLAM is land attack only and is completely unable to take control of an AO (area of operations, don't mean to be snobby if you do know what it means, just a lot of ppl I know don't). The F-18 on the other hand can engage air and ground targets alike, and unlike most conventional warhead TLAMs can engage multiple targets. Also the F-18 can be re-equipped depending on the mission with things like surveillance equipment or electronic warfare equipment. Also TLAMS are more conventionally fired from ships other than carriers, whereas the F-18 helps make our carriers some of the most lethal ships on the planet.
A better example might have been the F-117 or the B-2. However, ironically enough the B-2 can carry and fire cruise missles similar to the TLAM so that one isn't quite as good an example either. Also both of those can attack more than one target unlike the conventional warhead TLAM.
Other than that example, it would appear that you would be correct. However depending on the type of weaponry/propulsion/technology deployed if/when we do start fighting wars in space, the viability of space fighters could change.
Spaceships will not be spherical. Yes in space it doesn't really matter how you're ship is shaped for movement but there are other reasons why you need specific shapers. One is off course artificial gravity. For that you'll need a rotating ship with a large diameter. Another is Electromagnetic weapons or propulsion: while it's possible to make these turn, the most practicall design would be a long tube for either a bullet or propellant.
@lifekatana- Both spheres and cylinders (or cigar-shaped) ships have pros&cons.
Cylinders/cigar-shape can sustain much higher acceleration* and mass loads than a sphere, but cannot turn as fast.
Spheres can pretty much be swept around in a jiffy, but must have a very precisely balanced internal cargo while under acceleration, and cannot support the higher acceleration and mass loads of a cylinder.
*by high acceleration, I mean the rate at which something can gain velocity. Not the maximum velocity attainable (which is dependent on the duration of acceleration or the max exhaust velocity of a propulsion system (since it's impossible to go faster than your exhaust).
@Dragoon4ever- the basic principle of a "TLAM" outperforming an "F-18" in space still applies. In atmospheric operations the points you bring up matter quite a bit, but in space, a "TLAM" can be fitted with different warheads (modular warhead packages could even be fitted before weapon deployment if necessary); additionally it is nigh impossible to take control of an AO (I actually didn't know what the term was, nor had even heard of it, before today; thanks because it will actually be quite useful for me) in space (the closest to having control of an AO is area denial; that is, you have enough reach that a substantial area is denied the enemy because it is too risky to attempt to operate in a certain area).
In space, surveillance/reconnaissance will be done by a ship, and not a fighter, because- the ship can carry bigger sensors, and space is EXTREMELY sensor friendly.
Max exhaust velocity? Are you sure?
Why can cigars sustain higher acceleration?
I refer you to the good site http://projectrho.com/. You will have to navigate from their to the section "Advanced Design". For assistance on why a cigar (which is actually a cylinder, so I made a mistake their a little) is better (or worse, you decide). Note on the acceleration bit- a "cigar" and a sphere will both be capable of the same final velocity (assuming they have the delta-v and comparably powerful propulsion systems). The rate at which they gain the velocity will be different.
HERE's some on why a cylinder is good/bad-
The cylinder is more aerodynamic (for take-off and landing on planets with atmospheres), and allows the use of a smaller anti-radiation shadow shield (because from the point of view of the reactor the body of the ship subtends a smaller angle). It also lends itself well to the tumbling pigeon concept since it does not have to spin as fast as a sphere of the same volume in order to generate the same centrifugal gravity.
Drawbacks include a larger surface area, and a larger "moment of inertia" for yaw and pitch maneuvers (but a lower moment of inertia for roll maneuvers). This means it takes forever to point the ship's nose in different directions as compared to a sphere, which means poor maneuverability (See short story "Hide and Seek" by Sir Arthur C. Clarke for details). Larger gyros or stronger attitude jets will be needed. A faster roll rate is actually not of much use, unless you are trying to get a weapon turret to bear on an enemy ship (See the wargame Attack Vector: Tactical for details).
Cylinder shapes are also better if your ship has a so-called "spinal mount" weapon, that is, where instead of mounting a weapon on your ship you instead build the ship around the weapon. Such weapons are typically long and skinny, which fits the profile of a cigar more than a sphere
AND now the sphere-
Spheres have the largest enclosed volume for the smallest surface area of any shape, which is a major advantage where every gram of structural mass is a penalty. They also have a smaller moment of inertia for yaw and pitch maneuvers. Drawbacks are the opposite of the cylinder: they are only slightly more aerodynamic than a brick, they don't shadow shield well, and they are lousy tumbling pigeons.
Spheres also require more internal support structure than cylinder to handle the same acceleration load, particularly if you're going to be putting decks inside of it that rely on the structural framework of the spheroidal hull for rigidity. Cylinders under acceleration support themselves in the same manner as a skyscraper building, spheres need extra bracing to keep the equator from sagging. Of course this only becomes a problem if the acceleration is greater than a tenth of a gee, neither spheres nor cylinders have any problem coping with milligee acceleration.
On the other tentacle, if the shape has to be pressurized, like a fuel tank or a crew compartment, non-spherical shapes require more bracing mass and are more expensive to construct than spherical shapes.
Ken Burnside noted that another drawback of a sphere is that your internal volume is going to have a lot of "wasted dead spaces" near the hull. Odd shaped volumes that are what happens when you have an interior wall sectioning off part of the curved surface of the sphere. Anybody who has tried to lay out a floor plan inside a Buckminster Fuller geodetic dome house knows the problem.
AND a bit of comparison-
Yet another thing to keep in mind is that using current manufacturing techniques, constructing a cylindrical hull costs about 70% of the cost of constructing a spherical hull with the same volume.
Why? Because it is more difficult to manufactured girders and plates that are bent compared to straight ones. A cylinder is constructed using straight stringers. The frames are circular, but all the frames have the same radius and radius of curvature. A sphere on the other hand uses curved stringers and circular frames all of different sizes (well, there are actually two frames of each given radius, but you understand the point I'm trying to make).
On most modern wet-navy warships, the hull plates are mostly straight, with a few bent in one dimension, and only a couple bent spherically in two dimensions. Bending is expensive. Eliminating the bending cost will require one and perhaps two breakthroughs in manufacturing technology.
SO there you have it. (capitalized 1st words are for differentiation of sections). EDIT: Forgot to mention this- the shapes are reduced to the fundamentals. As for the exhaust velocity- I read it somewhere and cannot seem to find the source. I am reasonably confident that it is on the Atomic Rockets site.
Yes I knew about the site. Obviously i thought you meant something fundamental about the shape that meant your rate of acceleration is less. Good titbits of information although I had figured most of it out already with common sense.
Cylinder shapes are also better if your ship has a so-called "spinal mount" weapon, that is, where instead of mounting a weapon on your ship you instead build the ship around the weapon. Such weapons are typically long and skinny, which fits the profile of a cigar more than a sphere-> electromagnetic weapon or propulsion.
That, and a "cylinder" shape is also more aesthetically (sp?) pleasing (at least to me).
hehe
borg spheres.
eww, borg. And ST in general, considering how {pilot: "Captain, we're overteching the tech" Data: "Captain, if we tech this other tech this way it will make the tech being extremely efficient"} and detrimental to perception of science.
You're right. I had misunderstood what a Missile Bus was. I had thought it was just a fire and forget sort of thing that fires yet more missiles.
Either way, fighters will eventually need to be used, simply due to the vastness of space. Even basic communications to the Mars Rovers take several minutes, so in order for long range space combat to be effective pre-FTL communications you would need to at the very least need to have a trailing craft to send orders to the Missile to manuever it with any sort of precision, and more likely a small fleet of craft, just for redundancy, so would it not make sense to arm these craft and train their pilots in the intricacies of space combat as an extra layer of redundancy?
and what is to say that the missile/bus must have any interaction with the launching craft whatsoever post-launch? To me, the weapon is equipped with a simple sensor+guidance suite, complex enough to not be fooled by simple countermeasures and simple enough to be cheaply manufacturable.
Effectively, a launch procedure is such that- you detect what you think is the enemy; it is then identified as the enemy. You program the weapon to search the general (w/in a couple 1000 km) area as it flies in to destroy the target. This is for erratic movement compensation on the part of the enemy, as it would be more intelligent to launch the weapon on an intercept trajectory, rather than launch it where you got a contact (which, if distance is on the order of light-seconds (many 100k km), then you see the target where it was, and launch the weapon toward where it will be).
I really think you should check the site projectrho.com. It has some very good arguments for/against fighters (more against than for BTW). I think that fighters make sense in certain, very particular contexts.
Probably the biggest problem about the feasability of spacefighters in general is "what is a space fighter?" Is it an F-15 IN SPACE! or is it a B-1B/B-2/B-52H equivalent craft that is designed to destroy other B-1B/B-2/B-52H equivalent craft?
To me, a traditional "spacefighter" is a 'simple' 1-2 man craft. Therefore, it is probably going to be too small to carry a meaningful amount of ordnance&delta-v. Thus, it can't really do any damage and it can't really get anywhere. One thing to note is that a current F-15 (I believe it's the F-15) weighs about 36 metric tonnes (36,000 kg) fully loaded, sitting on the ground ready for launch. A Boeing 787 weighs between 200-300 metric tonnes. I envision not a spacefighter per se, but a "Fast Attack Craft", a small, 3-5 man crew (dependent on ship size, sophistication, and mission; a combat FAC would likely have 5+, while an exploration/scout FAC might need only 3-5 crewmembers) operating it; the ship itself would weigh in from 200-500 metric tonnes or maybe more.
Thus, in order to really discuss (civilly, as if we wish to devolve into a simple and single-minded flame war, we can just say "missile busez pwn fighterz" and "no, fighterz own missile busez", etc. etc. ad nauseum) spacefighters, we must 1st define what a spacefighter is. I consider it to be a low mass (under 100 metric tonnes) craft, making it rather unfeasible (particularly with current engine technology) to say the least.
Starfighters in the traditional sense would not be viable. Even if they were used, its pilot would have to be wearing heavy radiation suits to prevent the pilot from dying even after an engagment. However, unmanned drones could be viable if the necessity for closer and more accurate engagments are necessary. Unless of course, guided missiles become accurate enough to perfectly pinpoint certain targets, that is.
Also, I'm doubtful that lazers will be viable in space combat. The amount of energy needed to process and fire a continuous, threatening beam would be too inefficient in comparisons to missiles and railguns.
If the guidance+sensor suite is simple enough to be cheaply available, eventually countermeasures will show up that are too complicated for it, driving the price up as more and more sophisticated sensors will be needed to counter the countermeasures. I guess I see Missile combat in space as more of a remote guidance sort of thing, while you see it as the instalation of rudimentry AI subsystems onboard the missile. I can see where you are coming from and I accept it as a valid viewpoint, but I guess that you and I will just have to agree to disagree on the viability of a small manned craft in space combat.
You're missing two vital points.
1. Those evil alien conquerors would have annihilated themselves by default. It is inevitable. The amount of energy required to cross interstellar space is immense. More than enough to seriously ruin any planet's day. Look at us aggressive humans. Every piece of technology we come up with we end up using to blow each other up. NO exceptions. The only thing keeping us from using biological or nuclear weapons is fear, which is a shaky and not that reliable reason not to use those weapons. And the fact that governments, not individuals or organizations, control those weapons still.
Now imagine how long our world would last if we had technology which allowed each and every one of us to handle the kind of power usually found in nuclear bombs, contained in everyday devices? That kind of technological level is needed for interstellar travel.
We wouldn't last five minutes.
2. Aggression works both ways. It is not purely an external force. Every society which exhibits aggressive tendencies is also by default aggressive towards its members. Mix that with the aforementioned amount of power available to private individuals and you come to the only logical conclusion:
Only peaceful and stable societies can survive their own technology. Only peaceful and intrinsically benevolent civilizations can inhabit interstellar space.
So no need to worry about evil galactic conquerors. They do not exist. They cannot exist - the universe is made that way. They exist only in our imaginations because we paint the world and the universe according to our nature. WE are the would be galactic conquerors. But, as I said - we are either going to illuminate our society and civilization along the way, or be reduced to eating cockroaches and throwing rocks at each other. It is an inevitable choice.
Lasers I think they will actually be used. Sure they take energy, but we got fusion in the future!
Problem with the lasers - you add a reflective/refractive hull plates to your ships and they're invulnerable.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
