Subject:
|
Re: Combat strategies and tactics in space. Was: Jormungand Carrier Strike Craft
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:26:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1620 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Erik Schroer wrote:
> But before we can even address this, we would need to
> agree upon the sensors being used. The Wing Commander
> reference was just a way of visually explaining how
> and why.
OK. My main problem with things like using a movie to demonstrate a point is
that most movies have so many *invalid* or just plain *wrong* physics in them,
that it's rather tough to use them as (positive) examples. When they do get
things right, it's often not for the correct reasons anyway.
On the plus side, bad science in movies makes teaching undergraduate classes
a *LOT* more fun :-).
> I was using "wait" to mean that they were prepared to
> fight you and as such in the most easily defensible
> formation possible... the ships will be in the same
> general vicinity of one another not spread out over
> thousands of kilometres.
Why not? Consider protecting NYC from a space-based attack with a fleet in
orbit. Where should you place your ships? Over NYC? No, they'd fall down. OK
then in an orbit that crosses over NYC. Ah, yes, but now (if you don't know the
attack time) you need a lot of ships, enough to populate the whole orbit and yet
ensure that at any point on that orbital ring, you have enough firepower to
defend with - the defensive fleet just got vastly larger. Worse yet, the planet
is rotating at a different rate than your orbit, so one orbit doesn't cover it -
instead, you need many overlapping orbits. To defend against one ship, you need
an armada, of which only a very small percentage will be in range at any one
time, and closing velocities between the attacker(s) and the defenders will be
on the order of the orbital velocity (or more: attacker comes in retrograde
relative to defending fleet, closing velocity (at least!) 15 kps. At those
speeds, BB's are all the weapons you need.
And, given the above, why on Earth (or off it) would you bother with an
offensive fleet. A bunch of high-velocity rocks on an orbit to intersect NYC is
more than enough. And they're a heck of a lot more stealthy than any spacecraft
(*particularly* a weaponed spacecraft) is going to be, even if you handwave a
"cloak".
> I said super high-temperature superconductor, meaning
> a superconductor that is designed to handle intense heat
> like that of the core of the earth or a sun.
First, you are assuming a material that can remain solid under temperatures
that any known substances will be a plasma. Even given that, what does
superconducting have to do with it? A superconductor has no electrical
resistance - it does not conduct heat any better than "normal" material. So why
say superconductor?
> Are you saying that I am not self-consistent?
What I'm trying to say (obviously I'm not doing a very good job of it) is
that if you want something like FTL or high-energy-density weapons, it's very
very hard to make that "universe" self-consistant (for example, give me FTL and
I'll give you time-travel, which tends to make planning attacks rather, um,
complicated). Often these are fudged in Science fiction, but (*if* you want to
be believable, or even more important if you want to argue things out logically)
the consequences are often contradictory.
> You seem to be getting caught up in semantics and not
> the actual debate. Now I apologize if I have been
> difficult for you to understand but you did not
> actually contest any of what I said, just the way I
> said it.
My main point is that the whole issue is rather difficult to debate unless
the "rules" are well-defined, something that's difficult to do (& I've not seen
done yet in this thread). I'm the one who should probably be apologizing in any
event - I've not had time to deeply read all the messages here yet (cardinal sin
#1) and my viewpoint is probably significantly off from the mainstream (I teach
physics, astronomy, and biophysiscs for a university).
--
Brian Davis
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
45 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
