weapons in Orbiter

[MattNW]

DocHoliday wrote:
Well, I'm not categorically against military versions of addons as indeed most rockets in reality (and as orbiter
addons) were in fact some sort of ballistic missiles..

BUT... you all mentioned this a few times already here and I also asked this question on the main forum:

If you were to have addons that would shoot and keep track of damage and all that, this is all nice and fine. But,
imagine the actual multiplayer game. You spent countless hours, chasing your target, burning insane amounts of fuel,
transfer orbiting, changing planes, syncing orbits and whatnot.. In the end, when you EVENTUALLY do meet your
target in space, for a few seconds only before you drift around for another orbit.. it all comes down to who is the
more accurate shooter.

So, yes there is potential, but in Orbiter it would be extremely boring, which is WHY none of the space combat game
DARE use realistic physics, because it would just suck to damn much.. The closest to real I've ever seen were Frontier
(and we all know how lonely and bored one felt between destinations), some sort of free Babylon 5 game and I think
it was one of the I-WAR variants.. The rest use flight sim, X-wing-style controls which are fun and require a lot of skill,
but totally unrealistic..

The only military applications for Orbiter as I was advised and I agree are: recon flights, orbital bombardment, spy
imaging, station sabotage and the like. Boring, but I always prefered sniper missions to assults, even in 1st person
shooters And you don't even need multiplayer for these

Cheers,

I have to agree with Doc on this. I used to have a book about high tech warfare that had  a pretty good chapter
about space warfare. According to this book by the time the missiles and lazers fly the battle will pretty much be
decided. The main weapons will be sensors and counter measures against other sensors and counter/counter
measures. It's more a fight of see first or die. Not very exciting in realstic terms.

With limited fuel supplies it becomes even more static. Once you detect an incoming enemy if they haven't seen you
first and if you can get a shot into their planned trajectory then you've got a kill. The main concern will be whether
you have the DV and/or angle to plot an intercept with either a missle or a solid projectile. Actually according to my
book space warfare might take humans back to throwing rocks again. What better weapon than a million tiny
pebbles thrown into the path of a spaceship coming insystem from say Jupiter to Earth.

I also remember a book someone on the M6 Orbiter forum mentioned when this same topic came up about two ships
fighting a future space battle. One ship detected the other and made a course change burn then fired their missile.
The other ship was out of fuel so they couldn't dodge and the first ship had spent all it's fuel in the correction burn to
fire. They were both locked onto trajectories and the only thing to do was wait for the missile to hit in about six
months when the first ship discovered that they weren't the first to fire. About a month before their missile hit the
enemy ship they would die from the enemy missile that had been fired at them first. The crew then had nothing to do
but wait for five months to die.

Pretty boring to simulate in my opinion but realistic space warfare would likely be just this kind of scenario.

[StarLost]

I tend to agree with you Matt.  Thus far there are three orders of weapons for space use:

1. Projectiles, powered or not.

2. Hi-power lasers.

3. Beam weapons.

Projectiles will behave pretty much as you described complete with associated time factors. Beam weapons are significantly
affected by magnetic fields, hence will curve in the presence of a field (and they all fluctuate wildly) thus would be nearly
impossible to aim accurately.

Lasers are straight, travel at C but tend to attenuate and diverge over distance.

That leaves the final choice, a subset of category 1: manned boarding.  Same limitations.

I suspect that your first paragraph will be most correct and will take us back to warfare as it was pre-1860's.  For
instance, in the war of 1812, the last battle, the Battle of New Orleans (remember Johnny Horton's song?) actually took place
after peace was signed, but due to the lag in communications of the time, neither commander on the field knew of the treaty.

[Ghostrider]

Lasers are straight, travel at C but tend to attenuate and diverge over distance.

They will be of use as CIWS (Close In Weapons System) to engage and destroy incoming vampires (guided anti-ship
missiles), both to "blind" their sensors over the long distance or detonate them before impact. The most interesting
aspect from an engineering point will not be sensors or weapons (we already have them at least on the drawing
board) but armour.

[StarLost]

So long as we are held by what appear to be the standard laws of physics, I don't think so.

Again three categories (sorry, it's a Celt thing, we think in triads):

Mirror finish hull surfaces (to reflect most laser).

Ablative shielding (that will erode on burning or impact).

Magnetic Field shielding.


None are out of the realm of current physics.  

If you are thinking of systems such as gravitic control, multidimensional space manipulation, superluminal transport,
sorry.  Not for the foreseeable future.  This is dreamscape only.  You must have some semblance of realism.

[DocHoliday]

Agreed. Until we get some kind of sci-fi shield technology it will boil down to amount and strenght of armour. Which is
where the usual weight/thrust dillema comes in.. At least with current propulsion... hehe, which reminds me. If any of
your follow the Star Trek saga, the newest installment of if, Enterprise series, actually tries to explore mid-range
technology. So instead of shields, photon torpedos and phasers, they have downgraded versions of everything, no
shield but instead polarized hull plating (magnetic shield?).. Equvalently primitive offensive weapons as well..

Also there is another form of shielding (maybe it's a variation of ablative). I read about it once, when I studied the
Israeli Merkava tank. The active armour I think it was called. The idea is, to have your outter hull plated with
explosive, so that once a projectile touches the surface of the vehicle, the explosive on the surface goes off and
deflects/neutralizes the kinetic energy of the incoming projective away.. Basically, striking a tennic ball with another
tennis ball.

Thinking of mass/thrust ratio limitations. It's really interesting to note that none of human manned vessels are armed
in any way (at least as far as I know).. The astronauts don't even carry a sidearm Which is really good, as it really
defines us as innocent explorers, but the real reason is that it's all because it would be extra mass, not critical for the
mission. If an alien race would pay us a visit, they'd first laugh their asses off, seeing what an infant of a space
program we Terrans run, then tow Endeavour over to some Lagrange point and watch what we would do about it

I can just imagine their faces, after they see some kind of Delta heavy launcher liftoff from Earth in about a week or
so with a prototype CEV on top, making it's clumsy plane changes, syncing and docking with the Shuttle.. and then on
it's way back they'd probably tear off one of the solar panels and stick a banana in the CEV's left engine, then laugh
some more

Sorry, for going mentally awol here, but I just had to share my imagination! *doc wipes his eyes, of LOLing so hard*

Yup, space fight ain't our thing yet...



Post Edited ( 02-02-05 13:42 )

[freespace2dotcom]

hehe..

*notes the moderator going off topic here for once*

well, anyways,

If an alien race would pay us a visit, they'd first laugh their asses off, seeing what an infant of a space
program we Terrans run, then tow Endeavour over to some Lagrange point and watch what we would do about it

I tend to think that's what you'd do.

I'd probably just laugh and crush them like the little insects they are.

[DocHoliday]

bah, I do it all the time (going off topic that is)...

Of course that's what I'd do. I can't really say what a supreme incomprehensible species would do

But really, I think the development of warfare on Earth is going in the direction of unmaned vehicles.. so it's not hard
to imagine armed space probes, doing battle to ensure space superiority for strategic and tactical purposes. Two
reasons for that. They could be lighter than say a fighter or a cap ship (no cabins, galleys, life-support, food, etc) and
since there'd be no punny humans on it they could in effect be equipped with as powerful engines as we can muster
(no G issues) and the most devastating weapons (to get the job done even if it misses by 100klicks)... Then when
an "area is secured" you could carry on with human-based ops...

Cheers,
Janez

[freespace2dotcom]

I can't really say what a supreme incomprehensible species would do

Have you never seen battlefield earth? It was a hell of a B grade movie, but it got the point across.

"I'm sure we've passed it by now"

"but I didn't see the lines!"

(referring to political boundaries drawn on maps versus the actual landscapes)

[Ghostrider]

DocHoliday wrote:
Also there is another form of shielding (maybe it's a variation of ablative). I read about it once, when I studied the
Israeli Merkava tank. The active armour I think it was called.

That's ERA (Explosive Reactive Armour). It's composed of bolted-on explosive plates that detonate when impacted by
an enemy round. They're really effective against HEAT rounds because the explosion's shockwave disrupts the jet
stream formed by the incoming shaped charge. They're also marginally effective against APDS (Armor Piercing
Discarding Sabot) rounds which are non-explosive darts designed to destroy tanks through kinetic energy.

Yes, space armour may be both ERA- or ablative-based, like Kevlar armour which is designed to de-laminate upon
impact to absorb the kinetic energy of the bullet. We'll probably see gel-based defences too, which will use gels to
dissipate both DE and particle weapons by vaporizing and thus carrying away energy from the hull.

We're getting round to the naval analogy again - warships are not equipped with heavy armour like tanks (couldn't
keep them afloat, much less sail them around) so the emphasis is on CIWS like the Phalanx cannon and missile
defence like the Standard SAM. Spaceships will rely on defensive weapons far more than armour.

Sorry, for going mentally awol here, but I just had to share my imagination!

Those you're describing are not aliens, they're Beavis and Butthead in space.

[Atom]

Isn't there also this tank armour in development that uses a massive electric charge or something like that?

[Atom]

Found it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F08%2F19%2Fnmod19.xml

[Ghostrider]

Atom wrote:
Isn't there also this tank armour in development that uses a massive electric charge or something like that?

Looks cool but in a vacuum...

[Atom]

Hmm, true.

[oli_chose123]

so, in fact, if no artificial gravity, inertial dampeners, or any technology like this is invented, space battle will be
boring...
but in a nother way, in babylon 5, we can see these fighters, that are quite realistics(with thrusters all around) and still
effective....  well never know what the futur will look like except if one of you have a time travel machine lol

[DocHoliday]

Well, let's say, it will take a long time for the battle to begin, but it will be over in a few minutes. Whoever hits the
mark first or makes some kind of mistake... Kind of like flying a fighter plane in WWII.. 2 hours to patrol zone, 15
minutes of dogfighting, then out of ammo, and flee back on another 2-hour flight home.. I think most warfare is like
that, but we who've never been in the army/war don't know it... because we see the entertainment versions of it, or
hear stories of veterans who of course don't mention the "boring" periods, unless specifically asked.

Well, the way I see it the problems is this:
- propulsion is too limited to be able to power a vessel with massive weapons
- propulsion generally is too weak to perform big maneuvers (Babylon 5 fighters probably have a thrust rating that
would be comparable to Ariannce, so they can make quick and effective maneuvers). Extremely high ISP and very
efficient fuel consuptions. Our current space ships are mostly "fuel tanks"....
- intertial dampeners - a concept I really don't understand, but it seems quite necessary unless you want your pilots
with a major concussion after jinking a few times... artificial gravity, to enable long-term living in space. Similarly some
kind of technology to produce good enough, yet cheap food.. Hydroponics, synthetic rations, replicators??
- miniaturization. A Shuttle's OMS engines is still a huge things, similar for all other aspects. An effective combat
vessel would have to have compact, small, light, durable and extremely reliable set of devices.. Like the current
military, you can't afford your targeting computer to go down in the middle of combat. Sci-fi vessels even have things
like hyperspace motivators, the size of a beer can. It may be fiction now, but compare Eniac to a wrist-watch mobile
- industry and resource management. I've always wondered how people in sci-fi movies finance the construction of
say... Death Star.. or even Enterprise-E for that matter. It's something we are currently very bad at.. We either
cannot agree to work together, or we try to gain profit in every phase of the project and it's a problem to pile up
enough resources...
- other even more mundane problems humanity currently has....

Cheers,

[freespace2dotcom]

industry and resource management. I've always wondered how people in sci-fi movies finance the
construction of
say... Death Star.. or even Enterprise-E for that matter. It's something we are currently very bad at.. We either
cannot agree to work together, or we try to gain profit in every phase of the project and it's a problem to pile up
enough resources...

Oh, puh-lease!

Building such a thing would be easy to acomplish if only it were possible. (and on a reasonable scale)

Look at european castles. are they not a wonder to resource management?  the very last castles to be built had their
entire's countries' economic power behind their construction, shortening the building time from generations to maybe
10 years. such projects were done hundreds of years ago, yet were perfectly possible.

Surely we could build far greater things today, and surely, will be able to build the Enterprise-E when we're at that
point in time.

[DocHoliday]

Yeah, the pyramids are an even better example.. But I think the point you're making but didn't really, is that it takes a
feudal/dictatorial/absolute leadership to accomplish that.. slave-type underlings further add to the.. em.. efficiency

But the Terrans can't even agree to finish the ISS as a joint project, can we? I guess I should add motivation and
conflicting interests to the equation...

[StarLost]

Not until a mutual threat shows up will get out act together.


That is, if our governments even deign to tell us.  Damn all "big brother" thinking !!!

[Atom]

Inter-planetary Nuclear Missiles.

[freespace2dotcom]

Why nuclear?

Let's go scalar! (venus already is)

http://www.prahlad.org/pub/bearden/scalar_wars.htm



Post Edited ( 02-05-05 05:22 )

[StarLost]

I hope everyone has been following develpments on the M6 forums.  Between Eugene Harm and the fellow that originally
developed the MSSS MFD addon, there is now a viable method of intersystem transportation.  Standard orbital characteristics
at each end, just immediate transfer in between, which seems reasonal because if you are under superluminal flight you
probably wouldn't see anything anyway.

Scrooge McDuck, has announced that he has produced a viable moving camera in the interior of a craft along with interior
limiting parameters to keep the camera within the craft, which at least satisfies my requirement for collision detection (for
long-term mission simulation).

Spaceguy5 is playing around with hispeed nuclear missiles (seems to be blowing up only Canadian Orbinaut bases at this point).

So it looks like we all may get what we want with this version of Orbiter.

Now how about helping those developers out by developing skills of your own?

[freespace2dotcom]

which seems reasonal because if you are under superluminal flight you probably wouldn't see anything
anyway.

I disagree with that somewhat.

We all know that the speed of light is constant, regardless of your speed. I believe that even if you're travelling in
excess of 3X10^8 m/s, light will appear normal around you. (though things may go by you really fast. Think about
this:

Two spaceships are at the end of a galaxy. both spaceships head toward each other at just a bit more than half the
speed of light. Now, each ship is going over the speed of light relative to each other. This is exactly the same to me
as going to full light speed, because when we measure speed in real life, we set it against a reference, usually a
planet a ship is orbiting, or the sun, right? Well, for this exercise, let's assume that each craft is the reference for the
other. that sets the stage for this:

Well think about this, We don't know the real speed of the sun. simonpro may or may not be able to prove me wrong
locally, in the galaxy or so, but I'm talking universal scale. What if the sun was going in excess of light-speed, relative
to some other star/galaxy elsewhere in the universe? would we see that star? probably not. However, if we were to
go light-speed in comparison to the sun, (or possibly even a fair percentage of it), that would change our speed in
reference to the invisible star, right? Now, if that lowers our speed in reference to the invisible star enough, then
suddenly we'd be able to see it! (as well as any other invisible stars out there that we lowered our speed relatively
to) I suspect that there are invisible stars out there, as our current model of the universe indicates that we don't
know where a fairly large portion of mass is out there.

*reads what he just typed*
Ooh, that's deep...

[StarLost]

Go back and reread what happens as you approach c, as light ahead of you and light behind you dopplers in and out. Notice
how the "blind spot" increases to the point at which you see nothing.

Would faster than light particles doppler in?  Who knows? Tachyons have been surmised but not experiementally proven.
Assumption, therefore, is that there is nothing to see.

Until you can demonstrate otherwise.



Post Edited ( 02-06-05 00:45 )

[freespace2dotcom]

Well, once I get my warp drives working, we WILL see.

[Ghostrider]

Look at european castles. are they not a wonder to resource management?  the very last castles to be built
had their entire's countries' economic power behind their construction, shortening the building time from generations
to maybe 10 years. such projects were done hundreds of years ago, yet were perfectly possible.

On castles...

"When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all
the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a
third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're
going to get, Lad, the strongest castle in all of England."

From Monty Python and the Holy Grail.