Subject:
|
Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Fri, 10 Jan 2003 21:30:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
510 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Tony Knaak writes:
> Both these articles are very interesting as well as informative to all the
> spacers here. The first link leads to a listing and description of ALL
> proper names for space vessel designations by size and duty. I thought this
> was very informative.
>
> http://members.aol.com/noctifer03/private/Abyss/Technology/Vehicles/Space/overview.html
The catagories are interesting. I'm not sure weight is the way to go since
it's dependant upon the gravitational effect of the current location. If you
think converting between US and metric is bad, just wait until you have to
convert Mars weight (or any other planet's relative gravitational effect)
and Earth weight. I also think the personnel numbers are way off.
I DO like the distinction between those ships that are capable of
interstellar travel and those that are not.
As to the classifications, I think it is a really good start.
>
> This article is very well written and brings up a good discussion point.
> Read it and see if you agree or disagree about this persons prediction of
> space warfare.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/yuenkitmun/sf-coralsea.html
I agree that there is a good comparison between space warfare and naval
warfare. I also think that there will be a need for specialized craft to
perform functions needed to execute military exercises.
I think that the author it partially right - size does matter. However, the
author contends that the carrier is more-or-less obsolete since small
fighters have been replaced by the battleship. One advantage that fighters
have over the larger battleship is that they present a smaller profile to
the enemy. Sure they have a limited amount of firepower on board, but they
are harder to hit with conventional weapons (OK, what IS the conventional
weapon of the future?). That advantage makes the fighter a prime choice for
execution of precision offensive strikes, surprise offensive strikes and the
defence of such similar missions by the opponent.
The smaller craft should require a smaller amount of resources to operate
when compared to the operation of a battleship. Why send (to use information
from the previous link) 100,000 men to scout out a location in a battleship,
when one man in a smaller ship equipped with extra fuel tanks can accomplish
the same thing? Sure, the battleship will be better equipped to handle a
hostile situation should the need arise, but it seems that Darth Vader and
the Emperor are the only ones willing to dedicate so many resources to such
a simple task. Besides, if the scout never returns you can bet you have a
problem and THEN send a battleship. It worked in the old days.
Stealth and guided missles both scream out technology to me. My take is that
the more technologically advanced something is, the more systems and
sub-systems there are to malfunction. And that it will usually happen at the
most inopportune moment. Why not just propel a handful of sand towards the
opponent at a high volocity? It would much cheaper in my mind. The smart
part of the technology stays with the spacecraft and is reuseable, the sand
is cheap (just harvest the nearest asteroid field, planetoid or moon to
replenish) and much harder to develop countermeasures for.
The downside to fighters is that they need support. Enter the carrier. The
carrier's function is to provide a logistical safe haven for the fighters. I
don't see that changing. The downside to the carrier is that its main
function is to provide for the fighter craft, not provide a large platform
for weapons. I don't see that changing either. Without refitting the carrier
with more armour for defensive capabilities, you need the Battleship.
So, call me a conventional thinker, but it seems to me that we've come full
circle. The battleship is not the ultimate spaceborne weapons platform,
since there are duties for which it is not suitable. Some of those duties
call for the smaller fighter craft. The fighter craft are unsuitable for
long range missions and can easily be out-gunned, so the carrier is needed
to provide the necessary support. Now there is a true need for the
battleship to protect the carrier from a mass of small fighters sent by the
enemy.
>
> out
> Tony Knaak
> http://www.ozbricks.com/legostuff/index/index.html
> http://www.ozbricks.com/legostuff/mechastruct.html
Just my $0.02. Take it for what it's worth. I'ld be interested to hear what
other people have to say though.
-Duane
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Some great Space info and dicussion
|
| Both these articles are very interesting as well as informative to all the spacers here. The first link leads to a listing and description of ALL proper names for space vessel designations by size and duty. I thought this was very informative. (URL) (...) (21 years ago, 10-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
42 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
