Also on Planets with lower gravity?
Also on Planets with lower gravity?
Why scan the parts with cameras when they can attach something like an NFC chip on each piece? Would cut down on a lot of expense
While that would solve the weight issue, you'd still have to deal with mechanical complexity. All those moving parts makes breaking much more likely.
But then what was already more effective than bipedal robots on higher gravity is now even more effective as well.
Novels mostly because they don't have to show it. But still, every single war spaceship is fiction in made up, so there isn't really a truthful depiction either if it depends on technology that may never exist.Is there a single example of popular science fiction that doesn't get spaceship combat wrong?
Space has no air resistance the size wouldn't matter as long as you have suffient thrusting force on it.No.Specially in space a drone with no pilot will be much faster, chances are that also much more intelligent.
By the time Gundams are possible, unmanned or AI weapons will be able to chew thru manned vehicles before pilots have time to react.
You do know what mass inertia is, right?Space has no air resistance the size wouldn't matter as long as you have suffient thrusting force on it.
At that point, a couple boosters and a good gun would be all you need. AI swarm fighters and ballistic or missile weapons in space. Closer to Halo than Gundam.Space has no air resistance the size wouldn't matter as long as you have suffient thrusting force on it.
I'd figure a weird space fighter pod with thrusters in all directions would be more effecient for space dogfighting... if there is such a thing as space dogfighting and ships aren't just pelting each other from obscene distances.Space has no air resistance the size wouldn't matter as long as you have suffient thrusting force on it.
That's what talking about specifically Hence thrusting force (impulse). You are more likely to be able to fit in a engine that can produce such a thrusting force in a larger vehicles say a combined cycle gas turbine.
Yup. It's very unlikely it could exist in reality when Gundam had to make an excuse for it to happen.also remember Gundam had to invent a scientific plot device to make gundams work: minovsky particles
Is there a single example of popular science fiction that doesn't get spaceship combat wrong?
From what I hear, The Expanse is hard science fiction, so it's not too surprising.
At that point, a couple boosters and a good gun would be all you need. AI swarm fighters and ballistic or missile weapons in space. Closer to Halo than Gundam.
Not only would the smaller size cut down on logistics requirements, but you can fit more into something.
Not only would the smaller size cut down on logistics requirements, but you can fit more into something.
If we still have top brass supporting the F-35, we're eventually going to have someone contract Lockheed Martin to build a gundam because it was part of their childhood. Don't worry, it'll never get deployed because someone will also want to make it a troop carrier
Pretty much but ultimately it just makes far more sense for plenty of vessel to go far larger if economically possible think air craft carriers but requiring to carry far more resources. The distances in space to go anywhere meaningful are humongous and unless you expect a completely smooth and straight trip your going to need fuel. As well as all sorts of stuff considering the distance and time required for a restock.Unmanned is going to be more optimal definitely (assuming you have computers smart enough for the task), but small vs large is a lot more complex. Larger (in mass terms) vessels means more Delta V, which is significant both in a tactical and a strategic sense.
Pretty much but ultimately it just makes far more sense for plenty of vessel to go far larger if economically possible think air craft carriers but requiring to carry far more resources. The distances in space to go anywhere meaningful are humongous and unless you expect a completely smooth and straight trip your going to need fuel. As well as all sorts of stuff considering the distance and time required for a restock.
Good lord no.
Those things would be so heavy and slow that and impractical that the army who shows up with those loses by default.
and then it trips over and gets blown apartImagine you're a soldier on the frontline, the out of nowhere you see this.
Yeah as has been said, the Expanse is the only show or movie to come even close to getting spaceship combat right, taking acceleration and everything into account. They act more like battleships than dog fighters, which makes a lot of sense if you think of it.Is there a single example of popular science fiction that doesn't get spaceship combat wrong?
Imagine you're a soldier on the frontline, the out of nowhere you see this.
Imagine you're a soldier on the frontline, the out of nowhere you see this.
This is more to do with area/volume ratios. The strength of bone is proportional to its cross section (m²), whereas the mass of flesh that bone has to support is proportional to the volume of flesh (m³). If you scaled a human to be 2x as high, the bone cross-section would be 4x as big, but the volume of flesh would be 8x as big. This is why an elephant's legs are so wide relative to their length, whereas a gazelle's legs can be so thin.I probably butchered that, but it's something like that. I think one of the examples I saw is why giants (like 100ft tall humanoids) would moved incredibly slow because of this limitation or else their limbs would break off.
Fuel becomes a problem then. We currently mainly have large space crafts for two reasons. Engine effiency increases with large engines and you get can more complex in terms your engines (it's why a power plant is more efficient than your car). You can incorporate more than one thermodynamic cycles of a heat engine for example. Second problem is storing fuel as unlike if your on earth there isn't free oxygen, there isn't easily acquired fuel, that all needs to be on hand and stored somewhere. That limits your range unless your only planning on travelling in one direction.
My thought is that they'll basically be disposable. Accelerate enough to get there in a reasonable time frame, drop a payload, and if they can accelerate back good If they can't well, there's always ramming it into anything there. Now the larger it is, the more fuel it will need, the easier it can be detected, the harder it is to carry(and ship). Though, at that point, you might as well use multi stage missiles.Unmanned is going to be more optimal definitely (assuming you have computers smart enough for the task), but small vs large is a lot more complex. Larger (in mass terms) vessels means more Delta V, which is significant both in a tactical and a strategic sense.
This is more to do with area/volume ratios. The strength of bone is proportional to its cross section (m²), whereas the mass of flesh that bone has to support is proportional to the volume of flesh (m³). If you scaled a human to be 2x as high, the bone cross-section would be 4x as big, but the volume of flesh would be 8x as big. This is why an elephant's legs are so wide relative to their length, whereas a gazelle's legs can be so thin.
Gundams or any kind of giant robot/military super-mech is never ever happening
This, with a gun attached, working together in groups, is an infinitely more likely future of ground-based military robots
More stable, still easily broken. We use treads and wheels because they're easy to replace and harder to fuck up while being capable of going over most terrain.
More stable, still easily broken. We use treads and wheels because they're easy to replace and harder to fuck up while being capable of going over most terrain.
Nobody does, friend. Nobody does.
I can understand your reasoning but I was honestly expecting something along of ICBM's in space (obviously they wouldn't be called ICBM's at that point). Without having to take into account all the factors in the navier stokes equations like you would on earth programming the guidance system for such a thing becomes trivially easy and honestly I'd expect we be using nukes with these a well. You'd build custom use distance etc for these missiles and fire off as many feasible mathematically to ensure a hit. You wouldn't even bother with small targets as if you can find and take out their base of operations the battle is pretty much done. Obviously it'd be more difficult in places like asteroid belts etc.My thought is that they'll basically be disposable. Accelerate enough to get there in a reasonable time frame, drop a payload, and if they can accelerate back good If they can't well, there's always ramming it into anything there. Now the larger it is, the more fuel it will need, the easier it can be detected, the harder it is to carry(and ship). Though, at that point, you might as well use multi stage missiles.
My reasoning is that anything they'd be used against is going to have point defense, and that makes it a numbers game more than anything else. You might be able to carry 50 larger unmanned attack drones, but 100 smaller ones may get the job done better, and the fuel costs wouldn't be as great despite the larger distances we're on about because once you've accelerated, you don't need to keep accelerating to overcome drag, as its (basically) nonexistent in space.
At any rate, we're also going to have to talk about scale. How large is small? I'm thinking somewhere north of an f-18,quite a bit larfer than a predator drone,simply to be able to mount as many weapons as possible while being capable of carrying an engine that won't tear apart its frame in use. Basically fuel, engine, payload, computer, and that's it.
My thoughts on ship to ship combat in space looks a lot like ship to ship combat on an ocean, with the addition of another angle of approach much like aircraft would have. Exchanging broadsides of missiles or driven mass a la the rail guns like the Navy has, written much larger.
Even drones with payloads would be a stretch at that point, as most combat is going to be over long distance. Far enough that you can't see them and they can't see you, except via more active systems.
What's kinda funny is that in many Gundam series, the high-end mobile suits can already fly in atmosphere. At that point, why even have articulated legs?
Not that much more difficult; asteroid belts are incredibly sparse. This is because space is ridiculously, absurdly, unfathomably big.I can understand your reasoning but I was honestly expecting something along of ICBM's in space (obviously they wouldn't be called ICBM's at that point). Without having to take into account all the factors in the navier stokes equations like you would on earth programming the guidance system for such a thing becomes trivially easy and honestly I'd expect we be using nukes with these a well. You'd build custom use distance etc for these missiles and fire off as feasible mathematically to ensure a hit. You wouldn't even bother with small targets as if you can find and take out their base of operationsthe battle is pretty much done. Obviously it'd be more difficult in places like asteroid belts etc.
LOL I forgot about thatWhen Char asks why the Zeong doesn't have legs near the end of the original Gundam, a mechanic replies, "those are just for show to the brass" or something to that effect. I think it's a pretty funny way to say, "we can't sell real robot toys unless they have legs".
I mean yeah but comparitively more difficult in comparison to well the rest of space.Not that much more difficult; asteroid belts are incredibly sparse. This is because space is ridiculously, absurdly, unfathomably big.