The Pub Discussion Board

Okay, let's clear something up:  If you have artificial gravity, inertial dampeners are redundant.

Proof:  The Earth is traveling in a multi-circular path at over 1,000,000 mph.  You don't notice.  Why?  Because you are within its gravitational field.  Likewise, on any ship with artificial gravity, you wouldn't notice the movements of the ship.

Now, as to physical restraints being of any help withstanding high-g-load maneuvers:  This ignores what the real problem with high-g maneuvers is:  blackout and redout.  You take a high-positive-g turn, your blood rushes to your lower extremities, your brain suddenly loses oxygen, and you pass out.  You take a high-negative-g turn, your blood is thrown up into your head, and this causes unconsciousness in a different way.  These are effects that restraints cannot counteract.  Inertial dampeners - if those are somehow created without being artificial gravity - would also likely not counteract this problem.  To do so, the dampening field would have to manipulate a person internally, and at different amounts within the same body.  Only an artificial gravity field would counteract this problem easily, because it would negate the g-load on the pilot.  (Or mostly do so.  It would be good to let them feel some portion of the g-load, to give them a "seat of the pants" sensory experience to their flying...)

As to your discussion of how to control multiple craft:  First off, there's no such thing as a "non-active thought".  Firing neurons are firing neurons.  You're now asking for the computer not only to be able to interpret those firing neurons into our actual thought process, but asking it to figure out whether the thought it has interpreted is the "right thought" or not.  I don't think a computer is ever going to be able to do that.  We have enough trouble doing that ourselves. 

As far as I'm aware, we do not currently have any means for a computer to interpret a purely mental thought into some command or action.  All of the systems I have heard of involve the computer reacting to some small physical process, like where a person is looking, the raising of an eyebrow, the blinking of eyes, etc.  I seriously do not believe we're going to get to the point where you can just think, "blue", and the computer will show you the color blue onscreen.  I could be wrong.  Hell, maybe we've already done this, but I haven't heard about it.  But for it to "hear" your thought that says "blue", along with your thought about what "maybe it should be red, instead?" and for it to figure out which of those thoughts it's supposed to be paying attention to... no, I just don't see us getting there.  Not without employing the kind of AI system that, frankly, we're trying to avoid with all this stuff, because it would suddenly be in charge of what the plane is actually doing, and it risks the AI deciding it knows better than the pilot.  "No, Maverick, it should be orange."

As to the other part, you're suggesting exactly what I said:  The pilot would choose from a menu of options, and the craft would actually fly itself to perform the maneuver.  The speed gained by doing this neurally versus physically or orally would be negligible.  Realize that the speed gain from a neural connection is measured in milliseconds.  If you have to give a command that's going to take many seconds to execute, the time difference becomes meaningless.  Not to mention, again, that you are over-burdening the pilot with having to rigidly control his thought process during times of high stress.  NOT a recipe for success.

On the issue of ship agility, I'm not at all sure why you think being inside or outside of a planet's gravity well is going to affect the fighter's maneuverability.  Keep in mind, if a ship is within the galaxy, it is always in a gravity well of something.  The thing that's going to limit a ship's maneuverability is mostly going to come down to its structural integrity.  The ship itself has inertia.  It isn't possible to reduce the inertia on the ship, only on things within the ship.  Therefore, when the ship turns, it is going to face inertial forces.  If those forces are stronger than the structural integrity of the craft, the craft will break.

Now, being inside a planet's atmosphere would definitely reduce its maneuverability, given that the air would create an additional resistive force that could break the craft during maneuvers.  But the gravity well extends well beyond the atmosphere.  Realize, the moon sits within Earth's gravity well.  And both of them sit within Sol's gravity well.

And, last but not least... please learn to use paragraphs.  I know it may sound like I'm being picky, but it was actually difficult for me to take in your post, and what you meant, because your thoughts are all run together in a single large paragraph.

Eric Storm

You know guys this could be a better discussion with more than just Eric and I brainstorming here

Inertial Dampening / Anti Gravity;
   I suspect they will both require the same thing, that is the ability to generate and or shield material objects from gravity's effects. Inertia is going to have to be controlled also but I imagine the Gravity control will do both. I suppose anti gravity will likely come first, the inertia is just my rambling thoughts. I suppose I cannot say how either effect will be accomplished. Many writers explain Gravity as a wave but for some reason that just does not sound right

Last edited by ChiefRock (2021-10-19 12:10:46)

LOL yeah that is funny it is like the sound effects on star wars. Suspect a true space battle would be boring. no dog fights no light shows from lasers. Hours of maneuvers for a few seconds of fire.

   Right now I cannot think of any new ideas about gravity or inertia. If I come up with any in the future I will trot them out. I do agree though that Gravity, Gravitons etc. will have to be found, explored, explained before we can get anywhere with antigravity. And I cannot even try to explain your points about inertia except that unless they solve them, they are not going to get anywhere very fast.

Last edited by ChiefRock (2021-10-19 16:01:21)

You are right there will always be fighter equivelants. They may not resemble ours but they will be small for costs and for speed. Likely any ship of size will carry a few fighters The fighters may be the size of our small warships though. I had not thought of the infinite range of a laser. I was thinking of how silly it is to see them glowing in space. Give me a bit I need to study your other weapon ideas. Did you mention Plasma pulse cannons? Energy hogs but if that can be solved might be a decent weapon.

Space drives--now there is a rich topic.  There will have to be reactionless drives or we will not be going very far. I think gravity drives will be what happens. how they work is touchy. Simplest concept I have heard of is a gravity field in front that the ship falls toward. This could also work as a broom to keep micro stuff from being a hazard. ION drives sound doable but weak and they are basically reaction drives you just throw ions behind you instead of other matter. Some writers talk about phase drives and such but I really like my science fiction to be based somewhat on reality. David webers Harrington universe uses gravity in two opposing plates called wedges. I love the concept and it provides most everything you would want from a drive. even sounds doable.

Eric I am not giving up on lasers yet but they might be just used to guide for instance? Perhaps as the carrier beam for plasma? There should be enough matter in space to disperse them eventually

Last edited by ChiefRock (2021-10-20 00:55:49)

If you like your sci-fi to be based in reality, you shouldn't be reading about anything that involves more than one solar system.

I'm pretty sure a gravity drive would not be capable of warping space enough to allow FTL travel.  I think you'd have to have a gravity well so strong, you'd basically be falling into a black hole.  Carrying around a black hole to get around doesn't seem like a very safe thing to do.  Also... how do you push the gravity well away from you, without pushing yourself away from it?  This concept seems a lot like trying to power a sailboat with a fan.  But maybe it's just because I haven't read the full explanation of how it works.

The thing that made warp drive so interesting (to a nerd), is that it can, theoretically, allow for FTL travel because the ship itself isn't going FTL, but by warping space, it manages to travel farther than it should be able to in a given amount of time.  Though they have no idea how to do it, the astrophysicists say, if you can figure out how to do the warping, this concept would, in fact, work.

You mention a "plasma pulse cannon".  Without any specifics, just going on the name, I would list this under "particle beam weapon".

As to counteracting the force of a projectile... Let's do the math.  Hopefully I've done this correctly, my physics class is 30+ years behind me.

Let's postulate a 50kg projectile (GIGANTIC for a railgun.  The one the Navy has been working with weighs about 3kg).  Let's further postulate a projectile speed of 50km/s  (The Navy is nowhere near this, but hey, this is 200 years from now.)  Finally, let's assume a firing time of 1/10 of a second.  (It's probably a lot faster than this, but it kind of evens out, since the shorter the firing time, the shorter amount of time a force is applied to the ship...)

Also, we will estimate a 30,000 metric ton warship.  (The USS Missouri, for comparison, was 48,000+ long tons, which are slightly bigger than metric tons.)

So, acceleration is 50km/s^2 * 10 (because we got to 50km/s in just 1/10 of a second...), so 500,000 m/s^2.  Mass was 50kg, so we end up with 25million kg-m/s^2 (Newtons).

Our 25FN (Fig-Newtons.  Er... should that be MegaNewtons?  Nah...) are applied to a 30-million-kilogram warship.  so, we now end up with 0.83 m/s^2 acceleration... for 1/10 of a second.  That means 0.083 m/s final speed change.  That's less than 0.2mph.

I don't think you're gonna lose much sleep over it...  And the computer would be tasked with compensating for it, so the crew probably wouldn't even notice the effect.  Authors and movie directors opt for beam weapons because they "look cool" and are "futuristic".  Riker blowing a hole in some Ferengi's chest with a .44 magnum just doesn't seem very "high-tech".

To your suggestion about lasers... we use lasers for guidance now, I see no reason we couldn't do it 200 years from now.  I don't see any way for a massless particle stream to be a "carrier" for anything at all, however.  And as to dispersing the beam... yes, but how far away are you willing to hit before that happens?  We know that a laser can travel half a million miles in space.  (We've hit a reflector on the moon with one, and saw it come back to us.)  That was a wimpy little measurement laser.  Imagine a laser pumping out enough wattage to punch a hole in an armored warship.

Eric Storm

I had lost track of that Darthel--Light speed= you fire 30 light seconds from a target--where will it be in half a minute? Lasers may be infinite in range but just how accurate can they be? I am going back to the big shotgun. I have one with a short barrel it is just not safe in front of me

I am still unsure there will be battles like we think of them where two ships go at each other guns blazing. Actually a battle where one is orbiting the moon the other in the vicinity of earth is also something I think might happen at least for the larger ships. It would more likely be either missiles with on board targeting or kinetic weapons like buckshot or yard darts. The smaller agressors, fighter types would be the ones getting in under 20,000 Kilometers. So energy or beam types would likely be defense?

   I would not have a 10 mile ship. The larger ships like carriers or tenders might be a mile long but even that is iffy. Besides it makes more sense once you are big enough to carry what you want to just build more hulls, 10-1 mile ships would be a lot more survivable

Sermona:

Okay... first off:  In space, there is no distance at which some enemy is not a danger to you, if they can hit you.  In CASS, we've already seen super-fighters completely destroy larger ships using particle beam weapons.  While they may not destroy a true capital ship, you're not going to fuckin' ignore them.  If you can see them, they can see you.  If they can see you, their particle beam weapon can hit you.  It's just a matter of aim and deduction of your evasion tactics.  That said, most fighters are going to get in closer just to make the shot easier and more reliable... and to be in range of their missiles.  But ask the Navy if, during war, they're going to wait for the enemy fighters to get within range of the carrier before they do something about them.  The best time to take out your opponent is before he's a direct threat to you.

Next, you're going to try to use the equivalent of a "shotgun blast"... at thousands of kilometers?  Your chances of hitting anything at all are slim to none.  Here are the numbers, assuming a spread of just 1 degree between projectiles.

After 1km of travel, your projectiles would be 17m apart.  This is already a large enough hole to completely miss a fighter.

After 1000km of travel, your projectiles are 17km apart.  If you hit your target, it's because you got lucky.

Not to mention, depending on the speed of your projectiles, traveling 1000km could take so long the battle might be over before they reach where you wanted them to go...

Now we've already discussed missiles previously, and in fact, they've been used in the book already, so yes, obviously missiles make sense, if you can find a better propulsion system than "rocket engines", which are simply too damned slow.

As to using mass drivers to bombard a planet:  First off, you're a barbarian.  Second, let's consider:  The Kuiper Belt is some 30 AU from Earth (minimum distance).  We'll round off an AU to 100million miles.  So, the Kuiper Belt is some 3 billion miles from Earth.  Just how long do you expect your attack to take?  Even a tiny asteroid weighs a huge amount: you aren't going to accelerate that to any great speed.  This kind of attack would probably take YEARS.

You could speed this up by using the asteroid belt, instead, but you're still looking at something like 350 million miles away.  Now you're down to months...

These kinds of attacks are not feasible.  The distances and energies involved are simply too large to make them practical.  Your enemy would achieve their goals far more quickly, cheaply, and effectively by building a huge ship with particle beam weapons that it could fire down on your planet, destroying your world city by city until you surrender.

And, finally...

No railgun will ever reach relativistic speeds.  Here's why:

Given:

Speed of light: 300 million meters per second (300,000 km/s, or 186,000miles per second)
Firing time for our rail gun: 0.1s
Gravity acceleration of Earth: 9.8m/s^2.  For the sake of easy calculation, we will round this to 10m/s^2.

So, let's select 0.75c as our "relativistic speed".  That's 225 million meters per second.  We are going to achieve that speed in 0.1s, so our acceleration is 2.25 BILLION m/s^2.

Using our 10 m/s^2 Earth gravitational acceleration, our projectile will face an acceleration of 225 MILLION G's.  There is no substance in existence that is going to handle that acceleration without instantaneously disintegrating.  Not just the projectile, but the armature on the gun.

But... let's just say, for the sake of argument, that your gun parts, and your ammo, could somehow withstand that kind of force.  Let's figure something else.

Firing time: 0.1s
Acceleration: 2.25 Billion m/s^2.
Formula for distance traveled under constant acceleration:  Distance = 1/2 * (Acceleration) * (time)^2

Thus:
D = 0.5 * 2,250,000,000 m/s^2 * (0.1s)^2
D= 1,125,000,000 m/s^2 * 0.01s^2
D= 11,250,000m = 11,250km = 6990.4miles

Your gun rails would have to be almost as long as the Earth is wide.  To make the rails shorter, you would have to up the acceleration, which would subject the gun and ammo to even higher forces.  To reduce the acceleration forces on the gun, you'd have to make the rails even longer.  Neither one of these things is reasonable.

This doesn't even get into how you would find enough POWER to cause something to accelerate that fast...

Eric Storm

While not discounting any of your points which are very good ones, please allow a few thoughts. I can cancel some of the down sides of kinetic "Buckshot" weapons merely by not deploying them in the scatter phase until very close to a target. This would be a solid projectile until reasonably close then exploding or separating into a wider cloud of smaller projectiles much harder to combat. This could also be part of a coordinated attack by other munitions to overwhelm defensive tactics. Imagine what a cloud of sand for instance, could do to a anti meteor screen, while not totally destructive by itself it could in conjunction with say missiles be very effective even over space type ranges. I think range distance and the fact that you just cannot hide will completely change the way fights go.
 
  You mentioned space drives earlier and the fact we must beat Einstien somehow. I completely agree.
Whether we have phase, warp or hyper engines something either has to beat relativity understanding or create a shortcut around it. There will be no way to have viable exploration/colonization, much less governments that span solar systems without it. We have the possibility of communication already with quantum coupling.  My vote is something from that science will provide what we need to travel faster than light or cheat at least

Sadly, I'm currently suffering a depression, so little is going to cause interest in writing for the moment.  But at least it's keeping writing "on my mind"...

As to your points:  What you're describing is, essentially, the workings of an air to air missile, which often does not depend on skin-to-skin contact, but in fact explodes when close to the target, and sprays shrapnel to do the actual damage.  The thing here is in the amount of material that can be carried.  Or you could be talking about a Rockeye cluster-bomb, which is bigger than a missile, but again... limit to how much it can carry.

Of course, we've been heavily focused on offense... we also have to talk about what is available for defense, because that will strongly impact which offensive weapons are usable.

Here's the thing, however, that would probably negate your "sand weapon" as a useful weapon:  Any ship traveling at high speed through space, must have some kind of shielding to protect against micro-meteors, because they are going to encounter all sorts of sand-sized (and larger) particles as they travel through "real space".  I would think that, whatever they're using to do this, they would also use it to defend against your "sandy buckshot".

I think your weapon might better be used as a sensor-jammer, rather than an actual weapon.  If you can fill the environment with something that will either absorb, or just obscure, the sensors, it gives you an advantage... and then, yes, they'd have trouble seeing the missiles coming in.  You kind-of mentioned this as a use, just not as directly.

The other question to ask is, do we have forcefields?  Because if there's some kind of energy shielding, it throws everything into chaos.  You have to figure out how it works, what weapons it can best defend against, how it can be defeated... all sorts of things.  I haven't created any defensive force fields, yet... but we know they use a force field as an airlock on the space station...

Kinetic weapons of various kinds are workable, but not at distance.  They work best when there's no time to avoid them, and that means they're only going to be helpful within the tens- or hundreds-of-kilometers range.  Now, mind you, to me, "Kinetic weapon" is something that cannot significantly change direction in flight.  It can alter trajectory slightly as it flies, but it cannot "turn".  So, much like guided artillery, which can angle slightly left or right, but is always traveling in essentially the same forward path.

So, just to recap, here are weapons I think would exist:
    * rail guns (but not at relativistic firing speeds)
    * particle beam weapons (including plasma guns)
    * modulated EMP guns
    * lasers (but I think they're a last resort)
    * missiles
    * mines

I would put your concept of cluster-munitions under "rail gun", because that's probably how they'd be launched.  To me, if you can make rail guns work, they would basically replace explosive-propellant guns, and all the uses you might put those to.

Weapons I'm pretty sure would not exist:
    * relativistic rail guns
    * mass drivers

Defensive things I think would exist:
    * interceptor missiles
    * laser defense systems
    * sensor countermeasures

Defensive things I think would not exist:
    * ????  Not sure.

Eric Storm

This may seem just a little odd, but I haven't yet nailed down the configuration of the Nimitz II.  I haven't even yet decided if it will have a "runway".  As space-going ships without the concern for aerodynamic stall, they could land with relative speeds of just a few km/h, negating the need for a landing strip, and they could conceivably be launched out of individual bays.  I haven't worked through which one is better... and which one would be easier to retrofit, given that the Nimitz II is a conversion ship.

All that said, I expect it to be about 500m long, roughly.  Total width would depend on configuration.

As to the Viper, I envision it being slightly larger than the F-14D Tomcat.  It would be bulkier in the middle, and of course the engines would be on the wings, not in the center.  The engines on Superfighters are sub-light reactionless drives that nevertheless benefit strongly from the cross-wing configuration for maneuverability.  Wings converge into single-wing form for atmospheric flight.  (Albeit with a big-ass engine sticking up above the wing, as well as one below it... )

You would never want to limit life support to such a short time like 12 hours.  Consider the case of an emergency ejection.  Life support would be minimum of 48 hours.

As to the squadrons embarked on the Nimitz II:

2 F/A-14 Viper strike-fighter squadrons:
    VSA-42    Jolly Rogers
    VSA-43    Black Aces
2 F-8 Falcon fighter squadrons*
    VFA-28    Sidewinders
    VFA-36    Warhawks
2 A-10 Eagle attack squadrons:
    VA-12    Bounty Hunters
    VA-15    Black Knights
1 E-8 Hawkeye EWACS squadron
    FW-3    Starhawks
1 P-34 Gull patrol squadron
    FP-21    Sentinels
1 E-12 Blinder EW squadron
    FE-7    Nightbringers
1 C-102 Bison logistical Squadron
    XCA-18    Mules

Unit Designator Explanation:
First position:
V - Variable Wing Geometry (Craft looks different in space vs in atmosphere)
F - Fixed Wing Geometry (Wings always look the same)
X - Probably does not have wings.  (Anti-grav powered shuttles do not need wings)

Second position:
S - Strike-fighter
F - Fighter/Interceptor Craft
A - Ground Attack Craft
W - Early Warning Craft
P - Long-Distance Patrol Craft
E - Electronic Warfare Craft
C - Cargo Shuttle

Possible Third Position:
A - Anti-gravity capable  (In an X- designated craft, this will indicate its only propulsion method.  In all other craft, the anti-gravity will be an assist to the main engine.)

* The F-8 Falcon was referred to as the F/S-8 in the book.  I'll be fixing that.  The "S" was meant to represent "space capable".  Since every single craft in the book will have that designator, I decided it made no sense.  Most likely they would designate atmosphere-only craft, since those would be rarer within the book's universe.

Further:

First-wave Fleet list: (Not all of these would be sent out at once.)

Carrier: (Various Name Origins)**
    USS Nimitz II (CVZ-1)
        USS Amazon (CVZ-2)
Battleships: (Countries in the Alliance)
    USS Brazil (BBZ-1)
    USS America (BBZ-2)
        USS Argentina (BBZ-3)
        USS Canada (BBZ-4)
Cruisers: (Past Presidents in Alliance Countries)
    USS Corbett (CGZ-1)
    USS Diego Garza (CGZ-2)
    USS Quinlan (CGZ-3)
    USS Misty Rhodes (CGZ-4)
        USS George Washington (CGZ-5)
        USS Renata Cortez (CGZ-6)
Destroyers: (Stars, A-Z)
    USS Altair (DDGZ-1)
    USS Betelgeuse (DDGZ-2)
    USS Castor (DDGZ-3)
    USS Deneb (DDGZ-4)
    USS Electra (DDGZ-5)
    USS Furud (DDGZ-6)
    USS Gianfar (DDGZ-7)
    USS Homam (DDGZ-8)
    USS Intercrus (DDGZ-9)
    USS Jabbah (DDGZ-10)
Frigates: (Capital Cities of Countries in the Alliance)
    USS Denver (FFGZ-1)
    USS Brasilia (FFGZ-2)
    USS Ottawa (FFGZ-3)
    USS Santiago (FFGZ-4)
    USS Mexico City (FFGZ-5)
    USS Bogota (FFGZ-6)
    USS San Jose (FFGZ-7)
    USS San Salvador (FFGZ-8)
    USS Tegucigalpa (FFGZ-9)
    USS Caracas (FFGZ-10)
    USS La Paz (FFGZ-11)
    USS Asuncion (FFGZ-12)

** Yes, I am avoiding the name Enterprise.  What's your point? 

Eric Storm

So Nimitz would roughly be 3-4 times the size of our modern attack carriers carrying about 20,000 crew and roughly 100-175 smaller ships fighter and support equivelants. Also the larger ship would, like our carrier groups be supported by other ships filling scout, escort, and guard duties also supply or replenishment. This to me sounds very doable. I would add some of the larger guard ships likely will have auxiliary craft aboard also not in large numbers but some. Both fighter and support like shuttles.

   I had said I liked my science fiction to be at least believable but this would include some kind of FTL drive. There are several theoretical types being researched. I believe all space drives will be eventually reactionless type either gravity or some other means of propulsion, likely either gravity or a derivative of the same system. Ejecting some form of matter is not a very efficient drive and likely will restrict us until we overcome the need