New X:Rebirth

[asparagin]

The ability to vector thrust in a missile would not help because you would need maneuvering energy eg. extra fuel for maneuvers. Many current missiles run out of propelling power long before they even come close to reaching their target, relying on control surfaces to provide terminal corrections to target. So if you want extra fuel saved for maneuvering, you either end up with a very slow missile, or a very weak one(adding more fuel means reducing the amount of explosives). Either that, or a Very, Very short ranged missile at which point why not just use guns?

 

Yes but in space you don't have the atmosphere to create a drag, so you don't need to compensate with energy for friction. Second you don't have gravity, so again you don't need to compensate for ballistics. You just need a push and the missile goes forward.

[Pilotasso]

The likelyhod of a new Star Wars space sim tends toward zero while George Lucas is Alive.:mad:

 

 

If he wanst 1/4th Portuguese I would tell you exactly what to do to fix that. :D

[Pilotasso]

Actually, heat does not transfer in space well at all. If you want to remove heat from your spacecraft, you would have to extend massive radiators to do so because of the lack of particles in space.

 

Easier way to do that is to make a shield face the sun and then radiate the heat into the blackness of space.

[Bucic]

:thumbup: where d'you find that cool .gif?

[Pilotasso]

Actually a missile would be quite viable. You can launch it out of a mass driver, and it will add more velosity still by using the rocket motor, thus extending the Rtr of the weapon. Since the target is probably not terribly maneuverable, you can use terminal stage guidance thrusters separate from the now burned-out engine. Further, such missiles might make excellent space mines.

 

Like this:

GGvlNufdeL8

KBMU6l6GsdM&feature=related

 

Except in space the thrusters wouldn't need to actuate all the time, just for manuevers.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Pilotasso

[Succellus]

Well for IR Missile, you don t need to cool anything its already -160.

So the problem remain the acquirance of target (detect heat) and a software powerfull enought to diferenciate a star (close) from a spaceship heat.

There s also that heat itself is a poor parameter another heat source can enter in the way and the missile can track the wrong target.

As for using missiles as mines i don t think it a wise tactic, mercantile and transportation ships may not like to be blown off because they didn t had a transponder telling the mine not to blow off. Its also a migthy dangerous wild weadel as the missile won t stop and you never know what it can hit some zillons kilometers away....better blow it off if tracking fails, or propulsion run out.

 

As for fuel, it only need a start as vaccuem will not bleed speed and the rest of the propulsion reserve can be used on thrust vectoring.

 

But for tracking i can think of a zillion better means. biological scan, Energy shield tracking, Energy signature, transponder of lack of it, comunication frequency, and so on.

 

But hell even a primitive fire and track having to track the target on the HUD reticle (like older missile) or HMD would be fun, especially with track IR.

 

BTW is it only me or its damn hard to diferenciate Lower case from Higher case in the registration code adopted in the X-Rebirth forum....

Totally unable to insert the correct code cause i quite fail diferenciating those.

[Pyroflash]

And no, to all of you missile advocates. While there is little drag to speak of in space, that does not mean that you can just launch a missile and it will drift. You still need a significant amount of propelling power in order to get the missile up to speed otherwise you will have a kill vehicle that just drifts along with your space ship(not very effective).

 

Yes, many nations now have anti-satellite kinetic missiles that can be effectively guided onto target. But, here are the things to consider.

 

1. The final stage of the intercept is done by a very small object with quite a low relative mass.

 

2. The kill vehicle is near empty, or already empty of its fuel load at the time of intercept.

 

3. Satellites don't move around like a space ship would.

 

4. The Kill vehicle has no explosives on board, it is just a high speed bullet in space that can steer itself.

 

5. The first stage of the missile is massive, it is meant to be loaded onto a ship and is many times the size of a ground launched cruise missile. Most of that initial vehicle is pure fuel used to get the thing into orbit(now granted you don't need all of that once you are in space, but it is still worth noting, especially when you consider things like fighting an enemy that is in a higher gravitational plane than you).

 

Well for IR Missile, you don t need to cool anything its already -160.

So the problem remain the acquirance of target (detect heat) and a software powerfull enought to diferenciate a star (close) from a spaceship heat.

 

Actually, no. Space is not cold. Space does not insta-freeze everything. Space, being exactly that, empty space, does not have much matter in it to radiate the heat away from the source object(spacecraft, IR sensor, etc.) Therefore it is VERY DIFFICULT to cool things down in the depths of space without massive heat sinks/radiators. If you were to die in space it would be because your organs exploded inside of your body and your lungs had all of the air sucked out of them due to the explosive decompression caused by the extremely low air pressures one would encounter in orbit. You might freeze, in a couple of hours/days/weeks, depending on your position in orbit, but you wouldn't care by then because you would be dead within the first forty seconds of that.

 

As far as detection goes, I am sure someone can come up with a set of algorithms to detect and track a man-made object(space ship) versus a hot planet or star.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Pyroflash

[BKLronin]

A no go if the cockpit views are missing again. Made me feel (X3) like i am floating in space without a ship and hacking commands into a game console.

[GGTharos]

There s also that heat itself is a poor parameter another heat source can enter in the way and the missile can track the wrong target.

 

Not really.

 

As for using missiles as mines i don t think it a wise tactic

 

It's excellent when you need to mine some place.

 

But for tracking i can think of a zillion better means. biological scan,

 

Oh, really? What is a 'biologica scan' and how/why is it better?

 

Energy shield tracking,

 

See above.

 

Energy signature,

 

Like ... heat plus the other stuff you mention?

[GGTharos]

And no, to all of you missile advocates. While there is little drag to speak of in space, that does not mean that you can just launch a missile and it will drift. You still need a significant amount of propelling power in order to get the missile up to speed otherwise you will have a kill vehicle that just drifts along with your space ship(not very effective).

 

Sure it is, as long as it's drifting more or less exactly on collision course with its target ;)

 

Yes, many nations now have anti-satellite kinetic missiles that can be effectively guided onto target. But, here are the things to consider.

 

1. The final stage of the intercept is done by a very small object with quite a low relative mass.

 

Not a big deal. The concept is solid because ...

 

2. The kill vehicle is near empty, or already empty of its fuel load at the time of intercept.

 

3. Satellites don't move around like a space ship would.

 

You don't need fuel at impact except for fine maneuvering. How's a ship going to maneuver, anyway? Assuming real physics.

 

4. The Kill vehicle has no explosives on board, it is just a high speed bullet in space that can steer itself.

 

You can stick explosives on it.

 

5. The first stage of the missile is massive, it is meant to be loaded onto a ship and is many times the size of a ground launched cruise missile. Most of that initial vehicle is pure fuel used to get the thing into orbit(now granted you don't need all of that once you are in space, but it is still worth noting, especially when you consider things like fighting an enemy that is in a higher gravitational plane than you).

 

Oh noes, you mean you have to use some sort of tactics like air to air fighters? :D

[RIPTIDE]

You can stick explosives on it.

rofl? For what exactly? At relative speeds presumably of tens of kilometres a second and you want explosives? Its like putting some dynamite on the side of a H-bomb for a little more boom. The kinetic energy released on impact would be so immense, the weight of some HE would be best used up by more propellant. Remmeber kids... Kinetic energy increases to the square of velocity and only linearly with mass. And i'd like to know what fuze you would suggest capable of the timing required?

:)

[GGTharos]

What if you don't have such a relative speed difeerential - ie. orbital combat? Anyway, I suppose it depends on what you're talking about when it comes to your target. Are we talking ISS, or armored up sci fi ship? ;)

 

You stick a bunch of armor on the target and it might almost not matter how fast your projectile is going if it isn't particularly solid. If the opposition detects the launch in time they can also fly away from it, reducing the speed of impact. Today, you don't care - it isn't a factor. Tomorrow it might be.

 

Incidentally, such fuzes were certainly a very real consideration in RL, and nuclear warheads would be used to stop incoming warheads. You know this ;)

 

rofl? For what exactly? At relative speeds presumably of tens of kilometres a second and you want explosives? Its like putting some dynamite on the side of a H-bomb for a little more boom. The kinetic energy released on impact would be so immense, the weight of some HE would be best used up by more propellant. Remmeber kids... Kinetic energy increases to the square of velocity and only linearly with mass. And i'd like to know what fuze you would suggest capable of the timing required?

:)

Edited May 10, 2011 by GGTharos

[Succellus]

And no, to all of you missile advocates. While there is little drag to speak of in space, that does not mean that you can just launch a missile and it will drift. You still need a significant amount of propelling power in order to get the missile up to speed otherwise you will have a kill vehicle that just drifts along with your space ship(not very effective).

 

Yes, many nations now have anti-satellite kinetic missiles that can be effectively guided onto target. But, here are the things to consider.

 

1. The final stage of the intercept is done by a very small object with quite a low relative mass.

 

2. The kill vehicle is near empty, or already empty of its fuel load at the time of intercept.

 

3. Satellites don't move around like a space ship would.

 

4. The Kill vehicle has no explosives on board, it is just a high speed bullet in space that can steer itself.

 

5. The first stage of the missile is massive, it is meant to be loaded onto a ship and is many times the size of a ground launched cruise missile. Most of that initial vehicle is pure fuel used to get the thing into orbit(now granted you don't need all of that once you are in space, but it is still worth noting, especially when you consider things like fighting an enemy that is in a higher gravitational plane than you).

 

 

 

Actually, no. Space is not cold. Space does not insta-freeze everything. Space, being exactly that, empty space, does not have much matter in it to radiate the heat away from the source object(spacecraft, IR sensor, etc.) Therefore it is VERY DIFFICULT to cool things down in the depths of space without massive heat sinks/radiators. If you were to die in space it would be because your organs exploded inside of your body and your lungs had all of the air sucked out of them due to the explosive decompression caused by the extremely low air pressures one would encounter in orbit. You might freeze, in a couple of hours/days/weeks, depending on your position in orbit, but you wouldn't care by then because you would be dead within the first forty seconds of that.

 

As far as detection goes, I am sure someone can come up with a set of algorithms to detect and track a man-made object(space ship) versus a hot planet or star.

 

There s so many wrong concepts there issued from limitation of atmosphere knowledge.

You probably aint able to zeroe your mind.

 

1º i was wrong, space isn t -160 c its -265+ c, so you really don t have to cool anything at all, because there s nothing known colder than that.

And yes in space anything is stressed to come to the status quo, so -265+, or do you think spacesuits only bring and seal oxygen in a close circuit ?

Nothing freeze, cause all is already at -265+ but for planets and stars. those usually are they re own heat source or help themselves (the same way the sun heat earth and others planets)

 

2º The missile doesn t START a zero, it already have the speed of the launcher, exactly as atmospheric release, so it only need to fill the gap, and exactly as terran principle, the restriction of "maneouvrability" of the target is exactly the same as the restriction of "manoeuverability" of the missile. It works both way.

 

3º Nor missile would. Satellites are bound to relevant gravitational fields, the rest ain t 9your ship and the missile) unless both pass near a body strong enought to alter course.

 

4º Killing power. The same way it explode here on hearth, it can explode on space, if not by encapsulating oxygen and combustible to promote and acceleration, by the same way engine works but with an shork time powerfull effect able to send projectiles do pierce shield and hull. Again, equity of technology solve the gap. There will no aditional damage due to atmospheric friction to reap the hull apart. But this could be enought to damage sensors, engines, life support module etc...giving an edge over opponent.

Or it can be only a one time directioned burst of energy designed only to bring a powerfull shot near the target....whatever, just think out of the box.

Missiles arent bullets, they don t have to RAM into the plane to do damage.

 

5º In space sim games, technology of propulsion ain t based on combustion. But on energy cells or generators if the ship has its own generator.

By analogy the same will be applyed to missiles. So there s an equity of technology exactly as today.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Succellus

[GGTharos]

There s so many wrong concepts there issued from limitation of atmosphere knowledge.

You probably aint able to zeroe your mind.

 

You don't know what you're talking about. Please stop. :P

[Succellus]

Not really.

 

 

 

It's excellent when you need to mine some place.

 

 

 

Oh, really? What is a 'biologica scan' and how/why is it better?

 

 

 

See above.

 

 

 

Like ... heat plus the other stuff you mention?

 

1) Yeah so why waste energy just pass and mine the place. Unless you want a moving mine. But missiles ain t made for mining aren they ? Or they would be called mines, wouldn t they ?

 

2) Biological scan would be the scan of a lifeform and the track this signature leaves, you should see more sci-fi movies and read more books maybe. It would be better in the way that once locked in that signature it wouldn t let go of it. IR in space can be burned out by a star. Algorith can solve this, but in the beginning IR missiles were blinded by the sun and shaffs works in the same principle, try to blind or distract the missile time enought so the plane can escape.

 

3) Yes like a million other thing we see on sci-fi that may not hold much today but will probably hold in the future, or are there just for fun.

 

In general we re not refering to the extremely limited tech we hold grasp today when it comes to space travel. Imagination stil play a big deal in space games even if based on acquired knowledge and brought to fun levels.

 

I don t want reality i want a more fun combat.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Succellus

[Succellus]

What if you don't have such a relative speed difeerential - ie. orbital combat? Anyway, I suppose it depends on what you're talking about when it comes to your target. Are we talking ISS, or armored up sci fi ship? ;)

 

You stick a bunch of armor on the target and it might almost not matter how fast your projectile is going if it isn't particularly solid. If the opposition detects the launch in time they can also fly away from it, reducing the speed of impact. Today, you don't care - it isn't a factor. Tomorrow it might be.

 

Incidentally, such fuzes were certainly a very real consideration in RL, and nuclear warheads would be used to stop incoming warheads. You know this ;)

 

Right on spot... furthermore, you can put the speed you want, it its outmanoeuvered and miss its = zip.

If you put a way to produce an area of damage, you increase the efectiveness of the missile.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Succellus

[asparagin]

And no, to all of you missile advocates.

 

The Apollo Lunar Module made it with 8 t of fuel to take off from the moon and reach earth. What more do you want? Technology from the 60's.

And about maneuverability: the missile only needs to maneuver better then the target ship.

 

Also 3 degrees above 0K is a bit chilly for me. ;)

Edited May 10, 2011 by asparagin

[RIPTIDE]

What if you don't have such a relative speed difeerential - ie. orbital combat? Anyway, I suppose it depends on what you're talking about when it comes to your target. Are we talking ISS, or armored up sci fi ship? ;)

 

You stick a bunch of armor on the target and it might almost not matter how fast your projectile is going if it isn't particularly solid. If the opposition detects the launch in time they can also fly away from it, reducing the speed of impact. Today, you don't care - it isn't a factor. Tomorrow it might be.

 

Incidentally, such fuzes were certainly a very real consideration in RL, and nuclear warheads would be used to stop incoming warheads. You know this ;)

The relative speed is to be generated by the projectile. Not necessarily the launchers speed but obviously it can help.

 

If the target is so armoured up that it can withstand a gigajoule order impact, some HE won't do much. (1kg of Military grade HE is about 350 Kilojoule) (The energy of a modern tank penetrator is (only) about 6Megajoules.)

 

If the opposition flies away from the missile, explosives won't help.

 

Fuzes used for Nuclear devices, in turn to be used to kill nuclear warheads are so precise that they have to be mated to nuclear devices in the 1st place. :) :D

 

Remember, the explosive speed starts to become material consideration at the speeds I'm suggesting. IF, at the time of contact the fuze is fired, by the time the explosive starts to spread through the charge, the charge is already atomized, by impact before detonation.

 

HE has explosive speed of only a few km's a second.

[GGTharos]

The relative speed is to be generated by the projectile. Not necessarily the launchers speed but obviously it can help.

 

What are you gonna do, equip it with warp drive? :P Althrough you could certainly go for something PAC2/S300-like with 0-to-2kps in 10 sec I suppose :D

 

If the target is so armoured up that it can withstand a gigajoule order impact, some HE won't do much. (1kg of Military grade HE is about 350 Kilojoule) (The energy of a modern tank penetrator is (only) about 6Megajoules.)

 

Yeah, the point is you NEED the penetrator. It doesn't matter if you have a GJ of energy if it goes everywhere but INTO the armor. If that's your weapon, kudos.

 

If the opposition flies away from the missile, explosives won't help.

 

It can. A slow speed impact can still give you opportunities for damaging the target with a chemical warhead.

 

Fuzes used for Nuclear devices, in turn to be used to kill nuclear warheads are so precise that they have to be mated to nuclear devices in the 1st place. :) :D

 

I know, but that's beside the point.

 

Remember, the explosive speed starts to become material consideration at the speeds I'm suggesting. IF, at the time of contact the fuze is fired, by the time the explosive starts to spread through the charge, the charge is already atomized, by impact before detonation.

 

HE has explosive speed of only a few km's a second.

 

Don't worry, explosives still have their place in space ;)

[RIPTIDE]

What are you gonna do, equip it with warp drive? :P Althrough you could certainly go for something PAC2/S300-like with 0-to-2kps in 10 sec I suppose :D

I'm not even sure what we're talking about here. But it would have to be in that vein.

 

This is coming from having read the Halo series of books like The Fall of Reach. The Humans were firing solid shells from MAC guns at relativistic speeds towards the covenant ships. But the convenant's plasma cannons proved too good. :( Still anytime a MAC driven shell hit a covenant ship it was devastated. Obliterated. :D

 

 

Don't worry, explosives still have their place in space ;)

Yes. Nukes, Anti-Matter bombs. Sure.

 

The only need you'll have for explosives in space is to blow your rescue pod clear of the molten slag I've turned your ride into. :D

Edited May 10, 2011 by RIPTIDE

[GGTharos]

Well, I -have- been known to get adventurous with the whole atmospheric diving thing so this might not be too far from the truth :P

 

Yes. Nukes, Anti-Matter bombs. Sure.

 

The only need you'll have for explosives in space is to blow your rescue pod clear of the molten slag I've turned your ride into. :D

[asparagin]

^^ The major problem with explosions in space, I see is that you have no shock wave,

you must either use shrapnel (then comes Riptide) or settle with the effects of radiation (which could be enough)

[GGTharos]

X-ray lasers :D

[asparagin]

I'm still holding on to the missiles and go for EMP blast.

[RIPTIDE]

^^ The major problem with explosions in space, I see is that you have no shock wave,

you must either use shrapnel (then comes Riptide) or settle with the effects of radiation (which could be enough)

If you're going to use nuclear explosions, the process desired is the atomisation of part of the targets hull, or the entire ship. Anything less is fail. Now there are some secondary effects which might prove useful. A partial hull melt, will cause a side punch to the ship as conservation of momentum will dictate that as the armour melts and boils off, there will be an opposing force on that side. SO in essence, you'll broadside him. Not a bad result for a 1st shot. The 2nd shot better be the money shot.