How would an actual starfighter work?
What would power it?
A design for both atmospheric and space flight.
Aren't there decades old designs for nuclear powered strategic bombers?
Would turbines work in space because it's not a perfect vacuum?
What about weapons, detection systems, etc?
If we put together the best technology we have right now and made a starfighter, what would it's capabilities be?
>>28428759
There would be no starfighters
Just autonomous missile boats.
>>28428759
I don't know, but I like your questions and your picture. Nice idea.
>>28428759
You fucking moron, we already had a starfighter.
Pic related.
Take your shit tier thread down the line
>>28428799
This.
Autonomous missile boats with a sophisticated AI pilot.
Scroll down to the section titled "Space Fighters". The subsection about efficacy is particularly good.
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunexotic.php
>>28428879
projectrho is GOAT
>>28428759
>Would turbines work in space because it's not a perfect vacuum?
Fucking idiot. Go back to high school physics.
>>28428909
Dude...
Maybe I worded it wrong. Space isn't a perfect vacuum, so there has to be something there to use as fuel, or to provide thrust.
>>28428883
Projectrho is indeed GOAT
>>28428879
>>28428799
Those aren't starfighters.
>>28428854
That is not a starfighter. Otherwise they would have gone to the moon more than once.
>>28428759
>How would an actual starfighter work?
Like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1HCFM9yoKo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_Kill_Vehicle
>What would power it?
Rockets for main propulsion. Rockets or compressed gas for maneuvering. Maybe braked gyroscopes or flywheels for rapid orientation changes. RTG for electrical power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator
>A design for both atmospheric and space flight.
No. This is pants on head retarded.
>Aren't there decades old designs for nuclear powered strategic bombers?
Yes. These designs were scrapped for good reasons. Would you like to know more? Start a thread for it.
>Would turbines work in space because it's not a perfect vacuum?
Jesus Christ. Please be less of an idiot.
>What about weapons, detection systems, etc?
What about them? In general, weapons are likely to be shrapnel mines that use orbital mechanics to rendezvous with their target and then explode. And possibly lasers, if the "starfighter" has the power for it.
Sensors will probably be ground-based radar (safely out of range of enemy "starfighters" with receivers on the craft in orbit. Also optical and infrared. Any active machine in space produces a fuckton of heat, that can't really be hidden. The best you can do is try to radiate it away from the watchers you know about. And even then you have to deal with the possibility of a watcher on the ground and a watcher above you in a higher orbit. You can't hide, really.
>If we put together the best technology we have right now and made a starfighter, what would it's capabilities be?
Deploy some shrapnel mines. Shoot a laser at something to degrade its capabilities. Get shot down by pic related.
>>28430796
>Maybe I worded it wrong. Space isn't a perfect vacuum, so there has to be something there to use as fuel, or to provide thrust.
Holy fuck, are you seriously doubling down on this?
There's an almost infinite gap between "trace particles detectable by Science!" and "enough reaction mass and/or oxidizer to do useful work".
The whole reason rockets were invented, and are still used today, is because space stops being full of useful *anything* just a few scant miles above the Earth's surface.
>>28430796
>Those aren't starfighters.
>That is not a starfighter. Otherwise they would have gone to the moon more than once.
Hrm.
What exactly do you mean by "starfighter", anon?
>>28431562
I think he means X-wings and shit.
>>28431588
Well if he does, then the answer is no, there will never be starfighters like that. At least not ones capable of leaving orbit. You could maybe have some kind of fighter that could go crazy high into orbit for blowing up sattelites. However, there's no way any object that's fighter sized could go perform any task directly comparable to a regular fighter jet.
Space stations, sattelites, carriers and missile boats would be way better for actual conflict in space
>>28431480
>How would an actual starfighter work?
Nice link, dude. But chemical rockets have severe limits. That thing hovered for like, ten seconds. Strap on armor for micro impacts, life support, cockpit, weapons, computers and electronics....
No. NOOOO. That's not a starfighter.
>What would power it?
Rockets, compressed gas.... Maybe a little. I was thinking about something the twice the size of a Blackbird, maybe a little bigger. Use jets to get into low earth orbit and all.
>No. This is pants on head retarded.
What, you don't anticipate reentry?
>Yes. These designs were scrapped for good reasons. Would you like to know more? Start a thread for it.
Are you implying space isn't already contaminated with so much radioactivity that ethical implications don't matter anymore?
>Jesus Christ. Please be less of an idiot.
Dude, I'm saying space isn't empty. There's gotta be shit we can use as fuel. Nuke plants use steam, steam can be recaptured with high efficiency.. heat dissipation is the only issue but there must be a way. Liquid nitrogen? Who knows.
>Deploy some shrapnel mines. Shoot a laser at something to degrade its capabilities. Get shot down by pic related.
THAT'S THE BEST YOU CAN DO?
WE LANDED ON THE MOON 66 YEARS AFTER THE FIRST MANNED AIRPLANE FIGHT.
That was 47 years ago!!!
We don't have STARFIGHTERS YET?
We could have had a space battleship in orbit patrolling from Earth to Saturn more than 50 years ago!!! Pic fucking related!
And today, here you assholes are, trying to tell me starfighters aren't feasible.
By all rights we should have had them escorting colonists to mars by no
FUCK YOU DOUCHEBAG
I just did the math in front of you. There's your proofs.
>>28431868
I pity anyone who tries to converse with you, you have too little of a concept of the things you're trying to talk about to understand why you're wrong to begin with.
>>28431927
I'm drinking right now. EXCUSE ME.
But look at the timeline I posted.
66 years after America's first manned flight we LANDED ON THE MOON and that was 47 years ago.
Either they have a LOT of shit they don't tell us about....
Or something has gone horribly wrong.
>>28431868
>space isn't empty
You're right, the average density of interplanetary space is about 1 hydrogen atom per cubic meter. That's SO MUCH mass to work with right?
Please, stop being childish and don't become upset when the reality of your fantasy is explained. Read the section in project rho (actually read it, don't just say it's cool), and understand the impracticality in inefficiency of having "starfighters". The closest thing you'll have is "littoral" vessels that are not equipped for interplanetary travel.
>>28432042
NASA's funding was cut
The cold war ended
Our government is short-sighted and corporations running the country are more interested in exploiting workers and penny pinching over costs than they are innovating and opening new markets or industries.
Yeah, something did go horribly wrong. The country is run by fucking morons.
If America had a million people living on the moon today, they'd be fucking untouchable. Not even a world superpower, they'd be a fucking spacepower.
>>28432042
Something did go horribly wrong. Public interest and funding collapsed.
That has nothing do with your aphysical wankery.
>>28430796
I'm sorry but >>28428854 is in fact an F-104 Starfigter.
>>28428759
Keep in mind orbital velocity is 17,000 mph. Escape velocity from the Earth is 25,000 mph.
The "starfighter" would be built around its mission. For shooting down enemy satellites (like communications, EMP and god-rod, nuke launchers, etc.) I picture a high velocity 5th generation fighter capable of Mach 5+ and a verrrry high operating ceiling. It would likely need some sort of advanced ramjet for that altitude until we come up with some sort of non-breathing technology.
It's job would be fast intercept of satellites that are being "moved" into aggressive positions, and that would likely result in high altitude dogfighting with enemy starfighters.
Drone? RPV? Could be. Depends on if we need human reasoning behind the wheel. The whole idea is that our pilots can go on patrol and change direction and get "in theater" quickly. Otherwise, we'd just use missiles to intercept.
High-altitude bomber escorts a possibility too.
We already have planes that can work at absolute zero pressures, I'm pretty sure. Just attach some oxygen tanks and boom, you have a fighter for both atmosphere and space. But the thing is, it wouldn't actually be a space fighter for one simple reason: fuel.
It's currently impossible to make a small aircraft with enough fuel to get it even half the way to our Moon and back, and still not stall the moment they hit mid Earth atmosphere because of too much drag. If you try to make a bigger craft, it turns out we don't have alloys strong enough to have something that huge in the air. No, air + space "starfighters" cannot work. In range of Earth's atmosphere we can use our fighters with maybe slight modifications, outside of it we can simply have small space boats powered with something like hydrogen-oxygen pulsejets, that can be transported anywhere by any big spaceship we manage to produce.
>>28432275
Well, if you wanna get them to true space, some positioning jets have to be arranged too, eventually engine modifications like air intake block, but that's basically it.
>>28431480
so its a machine gun that shoots in every direction at once and hovers on a rocket motor.
>>28432059
Not that guy, but didn't the British design some magnetic funnel thing to collect hydrogen fuel from space to propel a probe to some other solar system?
It was never built, because of technology limitations at the time, but the idea was sound.
>>28432371
Sounds like you're thinking of a bussard (American btw) ramjet and the idea is neat but not sound, it induces more drag than it can counteract with thrust.
https://youtu.be/1BtqJH-0L-8?t=1h13m51s
>>28432460
skip to 1:13:50
>>28431868
>Nice link, dude. But chemical rockets have severe limits. That thing hovered for like, ten seconds.
It scales up, you know. Also, inertia is your friend. You don't need constant thrust once you're on orbit. Ten seconds of 1G acceleration plenty for terminal guidance.
>Strap on armor for micro impacts, life support, cockpit, weapons, computers and electronics....
It scales up, you know. Also, why the fuck are you putting life support and a cockpit on the thing. Are you seriously arguing for *manned* space combat vehicles? Why?
>No. NOOOO. That's not a starfighter.
Why not? It's got everything it needs to fight "among the stars".
>>28431868
>>What would power it?
>Rockets, compressed gas.... Maybe a little. I was thinking about something the twice the size of a Blackbird, maybe a little bigger. Use jets to get into low earth orbit and all.
There are much cheaper ways to get useful payloads into LEO. And there are much more useful payloads than human fighter pilots, for this kind of work.
>What, you don't anticipate reentry?
I don't anticipate needing to accommodate a live human on reentry.
>Are you implying space isn't already contaminated with so much radioactivity that ethical implications don't matter anymore?
You're the one talking about launching from earth.
But sure, okay. A reactor-based reaction drive might be cromulent.
>Dude, I'm saying space isn't empty. There's gotta be shit we can use as fuel. Nuke plants use steam, steam can be recaptured with high efficiency.. heat dissipation is the only issue but there must be a way. Liquid nitrogen? Who knows.
Not you, apparently.
Steam turbine reactors are already closed cycle.
And there's just not enough mass density in space to use for fuel or reaction mass or whatever.
Hard SF in the 70s and early 80s talked a lot about Bussard ramjets, that used vast magnetic fields at relativistic velocities to harvest interstellar hydrogen, but by the late 80s it was clear that interstellar hydrogen was too thin even for that.
>>28432442
>drag
>in space
>>28431868
>THAT'S THE BEST YOU CAN DO?
It's the best I'm going to do, for you. Space combat is going to be over LEO assets belonging to terrestrial belligerents. If it happens at all, it's going to happen between automated kill vehicles in LEO, and its going to be susceptible to ASAT weapons launched from the surface. Deal with it.
>WE LANDED ON THE MOON 66 YEARS AFTER THE FIRST MANNED AIRPLANE FIGHT.
And it turned out to be really fucking expensive, to build the world's largest rocket ever just to get two guys and their breathable air onto the moon and back. Nothing in the realm of physics has changed since then.
>That was 47 years ago!!!
Nothing in the realm of physics has changed since then.
>We don't have STARFIGHTERS YET?
What would we even use them for?
>We could have had a space battleship in orbit patrolling from Earth to Saturn more than 50 years ago!!! Pic fucking related!
And the moment we find Space Nazis in Saturn's rings, we'll build pic related. In the mean time, what exactly do you imagine we'd need it for?
>And today, here you assholes are, trying to tell me starfighters aren't feasible.
Aren't practical or useful for any real purpose, you mean.
>By all rights we should have had them escorting colonists to mars by no
Why would Mars colonists need an escort? Fuck, why would Mars colonists even be needed for anything in the first place? Is there a shortage of places to live on Earth?
>FUCK YOU DOUCHEBAG
>I just did the math in front of you. There's your proofs.
http://i.imgur.com/0UM26EW.gifv
>>28428759
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/misconceptions.php#id--Rockets_Are_Not_Fighter_Planes
http://www.rocketpunk-manifesto.com/2007/08/space-fighters-not.html
Read both of these.
>>28432684
drag in space is real, just usually very negligible. But inertia is still a thing: If you're harvesting enough interstellar hydrogen to fuel a stardrive, you're moving enough hydrogen molecules for their collective inertia to add up--if their collective mass adds up to real thrust for your engine, their collective mass adds up to real drag on your intake scoop.
Only applicable area for anything remotely resembling a space fighter would be orbit-CAS capability. And the physics on that seem iffy to me without some radical engineering developments.
>>28432460
>>28432503
OP here, I just watched it.
All that bullshit could have been prevented by having an Orion battleship or three in orbit.
"Oh, your little laser can't kill speesh migs? Here, have some casaba howitzer."
I've got a youtube link for you. Decades old technology that would fuck up the scramjet fighters.
http://youtu.be/fXeUkrlxQ98
>>28432704
>expensive
You will find the actual cost of the rockets and technology to be negligible. A passionate millionaire could probably reproduce the vehicles we used to get to the moon.
You realize a TI-84 calculator has more processing power than the Apollo craft?
>>28432795
http://www.rocketpunk-manifesto.com/2010/05/space-fighters-reconsidered.html
Now read this.
>>28433024
>You realize a TI-84 calculator has more processing power than the Apollo craft?
You are now aware that all of the engineers assigned to the Apollo Missions did not have calculators(they didn't exist) and had to use SLIDE RULES LIKE A BOSS.
>>28433024
The fact that no millionaire has the passion for starfighters should tell you something very important.
>>28433024
>A passionate millionaire could probably reproduce the vehicles we used to get to the moon.
I've given you several examples of what the world's wealthiest millionaire, who has a passion for space warfare that is unequaled in all of human history, has come up with along these lines.
If the UNITED STATES FUCKING AIR FORCE thinks pic related is the best use of their space warfare millions, what does that tell you?
>>28433109
They had computers to do the more complex stuff though. Still, your average smartphone has more raw computational power than all the computers that were available to NASA combined.
>>28433241
A wise man once said, "We didn't get to the moon on numbers, we got there on testicles".
>>28428854
Love the design of those bad boys, too bad they were hard as fuck not to crash in.
>>28431480
are those attitude adjustment jets or weapons fire? or both?
>>28431543
to be fair to OP, while not turbines, ramscoops might be possible.
>>28431902
good for hardened immobile targets, shit for anything else. any orbital weapons platform will be tracked from the moment it is deployed, potential opfor will take pains not to put anything immobile under its orbital path. Not to mention that launching a weapons platform would be a serious act of provocation , if not all out war.
>>28433241
Computing power isn't where the real expense is found.
There are basic facts of chemistry and physics that dictate how big a rocket has to be, to launch a given tonnage of payload into LEO. The Saturn V, Atlas and Delta heavies, and comparable Soviet/Russian designs are already pushing the limits of what is practical in rocket science today.
Sure, you could go full Orion and just start nuking the sky to get something bigger up there. But why? To shoot down a recon satellite?
Because recon satellites are all that's up there, anon. There's cheaper, easier ways to shoot them down. You were given all kinds of effective, practical space combat weapon systems suitable for taking down spy sats and each other, and you promptly went to crazy town.
Please, come back from crazy town.
>>28432930
You are correct, except your orion "battlecruiser" would cost a significant portion of our defense budget to inject into LEO (not the construction, the fuel costs of launching and assembling). it would also violate the Outer Space Treaty which pertains to the placement of nuclear weapons in orbit.
>>28433437
Attitude adjustment.
>>28433519
for a cubesat, yes
>>28433541
How about I give your attitude an adjustment, fella
>>28433550
No. Ramscoops would have to cover a *vast* area, to scoop in enough mass to make a difference. Several AU.
>>28433562
Thanks, but my trajectory and velocity are already five by five. I've got it from here.
>>28433214
I think it looks cute
>>28433214
It tells me our space program is DOOMED
>>28433459
OP here, I was thinking of a dual purpose ramjet/bussard.
No idea how it would work.
>>28428759
In movies and video games they make star fighters look like battle jets just for the sake of aesthetics but in the vaccuum of space that shape really doesnt do much of anything since there's no air. Realistically something of a more spherical or tubular shape would be best. In space you can move in 3 dimensions. you really don't need anything to propel you forward in order to drift up like you do here on earth. Basically you'd just need a box or a ball covered in a fucking assload of small propulsion boosters. The propulsion system itself really doesnt matter. There's no atmospheric resistance in space. Nothing to slow you down or speed you up, with exception to some gravity from heavenly bodies so really just venting compressed air of some sort would probably be enough or a focused plasma discharge.
>>28433709
Doomed how, exactly?
>>28433733
In any environment where the particle density is high enough to do anything with your atmospheric drag is always going to be significantly higher.
>>28433811
IT'S DOOMED ;___;
Hey....
Is there a way to convert heat into energy that can be used as thrust?
>>28428883
>Grasping for scientific justification of a preconceived fantasy of future space combat involving horrendously-impractical space-dreadnoughts
It's literally the AirPowerAustralia of sci-fi.
>>28434827
What you're talking about is channeling all the kinetic energy of a craft/object to an area then using that energy to produce photons and emit them as radiation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
It would, likely, not produce any useful thrust unless we talk about large amounts of energy, like from a star, interacting with a large surface e.g. a solar sail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail
>>28434927
>kinetic energy
I'm talking about thermal kinetic energy of some particles in a craft or object.
>>28433821
>Deeeeeerp
>>28434827
If you can find a way to convert heat into anything other then more heat, you would solve the heat death of the universe.
First of all, OP, you're retarded.
The closest thing we've seen to a space fighter is the X-37, and the only potential manned equivalents - the MiG Spiral and X-20 - were both cancelled decades ago. These projects functioned nothing like a "traditional" space fighter. Blowing things up in space creates debris which ends up denying orbits to anyone. By current predictions, it'd take just one or two major collision events (like blowing up a satellite) to make LEO unusable for a couple of decades.
The benefit of maneuverable space vehicles like the X-37 and Spiral is that they offer flexibility and unpredictability that you normally don't get out an orbiter. The X-37 in particular can descend into the upper atmosphere to perform orbital maneuvers, allowing it to quickly and easily change orbits to intercept other satellites. While there's no evidence yet of this being weaponized, this allows for "soft" kills of enemy satellites - rendering the system inoperable without actually blowing it up.
Any "space fighter" in the near future would work along those lines. You'd have a maneuverable orbiter along the lines of the X-37 designed to intercept and neutralize target satellites. Note that such actions don't always require docking of any kind - a high-powered laser could disable optics or overheat the electronics. You may see a class of fighter reacting to this (most likely using lasers to fuck with the heat-resistant re-entry tiles to kill the vehicle as it descends to maneuver), but there's far easier ways to do that already.
What does /k/ think of ion propulsion engines with extremely high energy power plants (nuclear, say) and fuel to payload ratios, being used for extended high maneuverability satellite killing?
>>28434927
>Solar sail
Holy shit tresure planet IRL!
>>28435077
Think a big semi- or three quarter dodecahedron rear profile covered in maneuvering ion thrusters, and a net/claw/harpoon/whatever front profile that disables and/or recovers satellites.
>>28428759
>How would an actual starfighter work?
Like lawn darts
>>28428799
>Just autonomous missile boats.
>Autonomous
Great for destroying the enemy fleet and defenses, but shit if you want to actually occupy them. This is like saying cruise missiles will replace infantry.
>>28433407
Only if you were German.
Spain hardly crashed any.
>>28431480
>Yes. These designs were scrapped for good reasons.
For purely political reasons, not practical reasons.
>>28433509
just tell everyone it's a communications satellite.
>>28432460
Does this come in a quality greater than potato?
>>28428759
Something like this.
But it won't be a fighter because that does not go well in actual space conditions.
>>28432087
>If America had a million people living on the moon today, they'd be fucking untouchable. Not even a world superpower, they'd be a fucking spacepower.
No. For some reason, there would be funding cuts. Moonfolk would not be a superpower. They would be stranded.
>>28431868
You didn't do any math.
They would be whatever shape has the greatest density vs surface area, wouldn't need wings because no atmosphere and would just hold fuckloads of missiles/torpedos/whatever
>>28435143
Why doesn't the Air Force having battalions of Air Infantry to occupy enemy bombers?
>>28435317
Name of the game?
>ctrl+f
>No Starfury
Fucking heathens.
>>28433811
A lot of navyfags are butthurt that space command is under the Air Force. They probably read too much Weber.
Lots of RCS
Lasers
Some sort of target seeking missiles
AI piloting so the craft can preform breakneck maneuvers if needed
>>28432188
It would most likely need maneuvering jets as well. The air in the upper atmosphere is extremely thin, and with the fairly small control surfaces needed to keep the plane from literally ripping itself in half every turn at lower altitudes and high speeds, it probably wouldnt be controllable.
>>28428759
You don't need thrust in space so the starfighters would have to take off from Earth or from within a larger spacecraft and achieve a high rate of speed and once they're in the vacuum of space they can switch off their engines, they would also have to use rockets or other self propelled munitions to fight.
>>28437536
Let me add on, you would need engines to change direction though
>>28432460
>Go further in the video
>B1 firing AMRAAM's
That video sounded like bad fanfiction
>>28433024
this post literally gave me cancer. Kid, please give. us one example of a "passionate millionaire" who developed his own rockets and space technology outside of the james bond universe.. I think you will find that ELON MUSK is a multi billionaire and that spacex and indeed all aerospace technology costs hundreds of millions to billions of dollars and almost never less... Also on OP, space is completely empty, space is 6 degrees above absolute zero and there are almost no particles at all interstellar space, and very few in interplanetary space, there in no where near any amount of matter that can just be harnessed for propulsion mid flight like you are suggesting. What you said is basically moron status and though I realise you are 13-14 I suggest you start reading on space and vacuums before you go professing your shit.
>>28437536
No, no, no. OP's intention to have them atmosphere capable is just stupid. Base out if the atmosphere, ditch all the wasted mass you'd be putting into atmospheric engines and aerodynamic surfaces.
On another side note, is OP suggesting that stars are unethical? Seeing as OP is a learned graduate in physics I assume he knows that all of the radiation in space (and indeed almost all in the known universe) has been produced by them..
>>28437712
It was actually a proposal.
>Big ass plane.
>Big ass radar
>Fast as shit
>metric fuckton of AMRAAMs
>>28437957
BAN STARS
ARREST STARS FOR POLLUTION
>>28434965
The heat death of the universe is because everything spreads so far apart due to the inflation of spacetime that there's no meaningful interaction between anything taking place anywhere in the universe.
>>28433214
how does a space vehicle corrode? There is no electrolytic mediums in space
>>28435077
the whole point of ion propulsion engines is that they require very little power to use, putting a high yield nuclear reactor on board would be entirely pointless. At that point nuclear pulse propulsion would be more economical (to the tune of a few powers of ten)
Missile frigates
Just think giant space shuttles with missiles
Lots and lots of fucking missiles
>>28439633
We taidanii now.
>>28428759
>propulsion
More like quantum jumping and superposition
>>28439186
Doesn't look corroded
looks like they just slapped kapton tape on the edges of all the heat shield tiles for some reason.
>>28428759
I have an suggestion OP.
You should get off your ass and start making money.
Once you become a trillionaire, use a portion of your wealth to fund your space battlecruisers and starships.
Its that easy. Go do it.
>>28434827
Yes, there are lots of ways
Heat gas at constant volume = thrust
Heat gas until it ionizes, accelerate ions = thrust
You're going to have to be more specific
>>28431868
autist detected
>>28440439
My thinking was, because heat is so hard to get rid of in space, if there was a way to get rid of the heat by using it as propulsion it would be interesting.
>>28433254
well thats fucking wrong innit
>>28435175
>not pratical reasons
>flying about with a nuclear reactor onboard when conventional engines get the job done
>bothering to have incredibly costly nuclear engined strategic bombers when missiles exist.
Sound like practical reasons not to bother to me.
>>28440305
We won't need money where we're going.
Drink as fuck NASA giy here.
Fucking hahaha shit in this thred.
I work on this classified program called red bone.
Bascly we made a fighter that can do this plus more. Top fukingg secrrt shit man. Fucking govy doesnt want people knowing were flying red reactors into soace at 3/4 light soeed. Gonna go to mars in hours not mknths.
But we got aliens coming. Govys been puttin movies out to get you used to the idea since the 40's.
But get this, the alins are the good guys. But the govy wants to keep power sk they gonna make us fight tjem.
Gonna prob go to jail for postn thsi but fucj it
Were dropping
>>28437914
not what he means, to maintain orbit you need an initial speed, however orbital inclination changes require substantial deltaV in and of itself
>>28435227
Because there aren't organizations dedicating to inspecting satellites all across the sky
>>28439633
Itano circus when
>>28437712
>what is the b1r
>>28443368
This is the best shitpost I've read all night.
>>28444699
Wouldn't surprise me.
I'm pretty sure being a nationalist is no different than rooting for your favorite football team. War is a bloodsport, I'm pretty sure.
Valhalla rising.
I love that picture of the alien in the dollar bill.
There's a thread on /x/ talking about stuff like that.
Like the paramount logo has 22 stars falling on a mountain, like the 22 angels that fell from heaven and were cast out.
I hope the angels get their shit together, the punishments for the angels seemed incredibly harsh :( but then again, I'm no angel so I have no point of reference.
>>28438363
No that's the Big Rip theory.
Heat death occurs do to entropy (see thermodynamics). In short every interaction exchanges energy in some form but there is always wasted heat so a true equal exchange of energy is impossible. Eventually so much energy will be wasted that there is not enough to do any meaningful work and all interactions (physical, chemical, etc) cease. That's heat death.
>>28435077
Thrust to weight ratio of ion engines are shit. Any serious war satellite would need nuclear or chemical propulsion.
>>28435143
Occupation is the Mobile Infantry's job
>>28446296
*due
>>28435227
Nice reference :^)
>>28437332
while starfurys look great, having a person in it severely limits maneuverability options
>>28446318
I would like to know more.
>>28439811
you better get on the line to JPL, they're going to need your theories for the Alpha Centauri colonization mission
>>28443368
(you)
>>28443711
vastly less ^V than achieving orbit
>>28435128
>>28435171
Canada crashed even more
It was a bad design period. Those liftoff and landing speeds alone are stupid as fuck without fly by wire and autopilot help.
Ant of you /k/tards watching The Expanse?
>>28446594
Muh Roci
>>28438001
> be Russki interceptor jock during WWII I
> gottagofast.jpg
> you and the rest of your squadron spy lone B1 out in front of B52 formation
> this will be of easy, comrades!
> the B1 paints you with radar
> hah! attack radar is for fighters, silly American bomber. this will of being easy
> suddenly, the B1 shits out 36 AMRAAM missiles
> enough to kill you and your buddies several times over
> yfw
>>28446594
We're /k/ommandoes, /b/-migrant.
>>28446789
got an audible laugh out of me
>>28446416
A 90-degree plane-change in LEO would cost more than it took to get to orbit in the first place.
>>28446638
*Tachi :^)
>>28428759
>How would an actual starfighter work?
It' Wouldn't.
>What would power it?
Hopes and dreams.
"A design for both atmospheric and space flight."
Any shape that would work in atmosphere would work in space because no friction in space.
>Aren't there decades old designs for nuclear powered strategic bombers?
There were also designs for nuclear powered cars. Both are equally stupid, and bad, Ideas.
>Would turbines work in space because it's not a perfect vacuum?
Lol, No!
>
If we put together the best technology we have right now and made a starfighter, what would it's capabilities be?
In a word, Shit!
>>28435175
>not practical reasons.preventing radiological disasters, a "political" reason? Top KeK.
>>28428759
>How would an actual starfighter work?
It wouldn't, there's no reason for starfighters to exist.
>>28434940
I'm not sure why you think posting an image of an aircraft using stored fuel argues against my point.
>>28433733
In the Vacuum of space it literally couldn't
whoever necro'd this terrible terrible thread deserves to be shot.
>>28446966
Expending that much ^V in an evasive maneuver would be a mission kill anyway
>>28447274
>Implying a Bussard ramjet doesn't use stored energy
Are you a literal retard?
Yes, it does absolutely disprove your point. Not to say that the other anon's suggestion was any less stupid.
>>28428879
>linking that shit website
I've lost count of how many different parts of their website have been ruthlessly picked apart by people who actually know their fucking science. Which makes projectrho amazingly hard to read, given how fucking arrogant they are about "respecting science" (i.e. suck our cock because we're right and you're wrong, except when we're not because we don't know our fucking science.)
>>28431480
>No. This is pants on head retarded.
Things I learned on /k/ today - everyone trying to develop an SSTO spaceplane is just pants on head retarded. Thanks, retard on /k/!
