So in space there are no brakes, to slow down you need to apply force in the opposite direction you are traveling. What kind of a design would a ship to ship space fighter need to have to be effective?
>>29882341
I don't see how it would be different from any other atmospheric fighter aside from replacing the engines with something that could function in a vacuum as well as adding thrusters facing all cardinal directions
>>29882383
>as well as adding thrusters facing all cardinal directions
Sounds like a sphere would be perfect.
>>29882383
That's stupid.
You just need one big thruster and some smaller maneuvering thrusters to rotate to whatever direction you need
>>29882395
All directions isnt exactly all cardinal directions
>>29882341
Either a reactionless drive where the orientation of the drive doesn't matter, or... well, actually you kind of need a reactionless drive in order for space fighters to work as a concept period. Otherwise they succumb to the tyranny of exponential fuel constraints and are less practical than bigger ships with bigger gas tanks.
Though I can see some kind of fleet model built around a bunch of high acceleration ships with low endurance and a fleet tender to refuel them every so often, but on the kind of scale a space battle would be fought, fighters tend to just disappear.
>>29882341
thrust vectoring
> most planes have reverse thrust without a reverse engine
>>29882341
There isn't any point to having a "fighter" in outer space.
>>29882383
No. Generally space fighters are a bad idea, but if you're dead set on using them for whatever reason, most of the design concepts you see with atmospheric aircraft wouldn't carry over.
You wouldn't want a conventional cockpit with a windscreen because that's way too vulnerable. Given the extreme distances you'd be fighting at, you'd more likely want some kind of display that doesn't give a real view of the outside space but rather a view of things like maps (generated by whatever targeting systems you have) or a zoomed-in view on whatever you're targeting.
More obvious is the shape. You have no drag to worry about, so your chief concern is designing for ease of maneuvering. That means you want weight as close to the center of gravity as possible to keep rotational moments of inertia low.
Plus, you want weapons to be able to fire in any direction, since targets could be coming from everywhere. That means you're either putting a shit ton of guns pointing everywhere, or you do something to give the ability to engage targets at high off-boresight angles.
Webm somewhat related. For all the things LOGH gets wrong with space battles, their space fighters are surprisingly well designed compared to a lot of sci-fi concepts. Still horribly flawed, but better than most.
To maximise effectiveness? At the risk of sounding like one of those nutcases in the 1890s talking about 'land battleships' and saying there'll not be any more war ever because noone will be able to stop strategic bombers getting through:
Space warfare will be cagey as fuck and be mostly fought by drones with the idea being to get as much information about the enemy as possible while giving away as little as possible. Stealth will be paramount so for the most part your space dogfight will look like nothing's happening. You'll have constellations of satellites sitting at lagrange points around strategically valuable locations to gather information on enemy launches/stop the enemy from finding out about yours.
As for what your average super starfighter x-wing will look like, i'd wager it'd be a constellation of unmanned tin cans full of missiles which sit very still at the most fuel efficient points to lob missiles at any point in the solar system. These will be emitting as little radiation as possible with a RCS designed to look like tiny space junk or an asteroid. The system will also be saturated with as many sensors as possible.
There will be incredible amounts of information to sift through and so it'll basically be a case of whoever has the best supercomputer with the best data crunching program will win - and who can act on it fastest. As a result you'll probably end up with an AI arms race to do the decision making.
But hell, you can never know until people have a reason for taking the fight to space, and for that to happen there has to be a developed extraterrestrial economy to be worth fighting over.
tl;dr: Think a game of DEFCON between supercomputer AIs rather than X-Wing vs. Tie fighter.
>>29882395
>Sounds like a sphere would be perfect.
This.
One big thruster to accelerate and brake, and RCS thrusters to rotate the whole thing.
The most optimal shape to reduce second moment of area and optimize rotation in all directions is a sphere.
Without atmosphere, manouvering wouldn't really be much of an advantage.
Not with lasers that don't have to deal with any serious diffraction.
>What kind of a design would a ship to ship space fighter need to have to be effective?
Some sort of mech piloted by moody teenagers with stupid haircuts.
Space battles are just going to be mutually assured destruction with projectiles at relativistic speeds anyways.
Might as well look cool while you're getting dead.
Obviously we're just going to slap alien technology into an F-14 frame.
>>29882789
>>29882790
Macross-mind.
We Borg now.
>>29882341
>What kind of a design would a ship to ship space fighter need to have to be effective?
>>29882341
>take space shuttle
>smallify it
>add guns
>?????
>profit!
>>29882800
Plz?
>>29882341
I always.liked the Starfuries from Babylon 5. Big RCS thrusters in addition to forward facing thrusters almost as big as the rear facing thrusters.
>>29883046
One day.
>>29882341
Thrusters everywhere.
>>29882341
Non-fixed weapons for a start.
>>29883531
just ignore their autism, anon.
>UN SPACEY MCSPACEFACE.
really.
>>29883531
They're transatmospheric fighters.
Also overtechnology, aint gotta explain shit.
>>29883554
I don't wanna hear any accusations of autism from fans of Gay Space Prussians vs. Space America.
>>29883564
>transatmospheric
Not with that planform it's not.
>>29883593
We're breaking all kinds of rules here today.
>>29883531
You need wings to enter atmosphere. Unless you've secretly developed repulsors. Anon, do you need to tell us something? If you have that shit, share it with the rest of /k/.
>>29883593
I have no idea what you're talking about, I was talking about ignoring people who were shitting up a perfectly good space warfare speculation thread with autistic animu wankery.
Anyone who thinks space warfare will be like WW2 dogfights but with lasers is star wars christmas special level retarded.
>>29883593
>not liking gay space prussians
>>29883531
Vipers can fly in atmosphere as well.
>>29883617
They have bullshit alien space magic reactors.
>>29883633
>Battlestar Galactica
>anime
>>29883627
>>29883638
>>29883647
Doesn't matter all that much when orbital velocities are on the order of several kilometers per second. Unless you're slowing down by ridiculous amounts well before you're in LEO (at which point you're plummeting like a rock), you're going to need a design suited to hypersonic flight like I posted.
>>29883622
Are we posting our images of Yang Wenli drinking tea?
>>29883688
No.
>>29883666
It's still retarded, anon.
>>29883688
I hope so.
>>29883686
yeah, but that looks dumb
>>29883593
>>29883593
>>29883699
well fuck
>>29883686
If they can splip-space jump im sure they can pull atmospheric space fighters out of their asses.
>>29882822
Came here to post this
>>29883704
nigga fuck you
Viper best girl
>>29883794
At that point you're just handwaving, though, so any attempt to justify it is retarded.
>>29883843
>logical alcoholic
>not logh-ical alcoholic
One job, anon.
One job.
>>29883861
>>29883709
Now you know what it feels like to have weebs harp on about 'muh realisms' when actually its just autistic levels of detail, even if its completely incorrect.
>>29882395
>>29882725
The problem with a sphere is that it means adding a lot of wasted material. It'd be huge once you made enough room for engines and weapons, and a lot of the surface would basically be doing nothing. Remove the material that isn't actually supporting components and you end up back at something that's relatively "airplane" shaped.
>>29883956
>Remove the material that isn't actually supporting components and you end up back at something that's relatively "airplane" shaped.
..no?
>>29883593
> all this gay anime face meme bullshit
>>29884604
>>29884604
>>29884604
Fucking weebs.
You want a realistic space fighter?
Here, have this one.
>>29884711
The actual soviet space weapon was chambered in 23mm
>>29884711
Space Warfare: drift through the space while painting your enemy with laser-pointers until they melt.
>>29883956
>It'd be huge once you made enough room for engines and weapons,
But you see Alexi, sphere is its own weapon.
>>29883861
What's coming out of those vents?
>>29884711
>realistic space warship
>solar panels
Pick one.
>>29884822
>implying humanity will ever leave the solar system
The only good weebshit design
>>29884804
Pure, military grade culture.
I don't think there would be space combat. It would be something like:
>Enemy ship detected 200,000 miles away
>Firing missiles
two weeks later
>enemy destroyed
>>29884827
Hey, it went from 12hp canvas paper plane made by two guys in a garage to two people walking on the moon in 66 years. Who knows where we'll be a hundred years from now.
>>29884822
>>solar panels
Radiators, nigger.
>>29884856
Physics wont allow it.
You guys are just scratching the surface on the design process of building a spacecraft.
I'm an aerospace engineer, if you guys want I can upload some photos of the design process of a spacecraft. It's fun to see where you can improve and using the some imagination with some knowledge to build a dream spacecraft.
Needless to say we are limited in the technology that allows us to build something like what you are all talking about. The most limiting thing is fuel options.
>>29884829
Good taste.
>>29884852
>taking 2 weeks to go 1 light second
Nigga it takes 3 days to get to the moon which is that far away.
>>29884873
Sorry for the retarded typos. I'm on a phone.
>>29884862
It literally says "solar wing". The thing around the middle says "radiator".
>>29884865
With the current technology, we could do a Project Orion type deal and make it to other solar system.
It'd be slow as fuck, but if humanity is actually going to survive over geological time scales, and there are habitable planets within range, it'd be worth it.
>>29884873
YES. You are also welcome to start threads on /tg/.
>>29883474
>>29883531
Muh niggas
>>29884873
I have a dumb question.
So I know that there are currently ion engines that throw out xenon at up to 50 km/s and there are particle accelerators that can move hydrogen ions to relativistic velocities.
Is there any physical constraint beyond weight that prevents people from building spacecraft engines that run on hydrogen, use nuclear reactors for the power, and have a delta V of like .25c?
space battleship
>>29884865
are you illustrating the argument against human flight, or applying it to interstellar travel?
>>29884910
I just realized that the term I was looking for was thrust velocity, and delta v is measured in m/s.
I guess technically you would want a delta v measured in fractions of light speed, but that's a function of the entire spacecraft, not just the exhaust velocity.
>>29884934
latter.
Space is unbelievable vast and even one single light year will be nigh impossible to cross.
The only hope is literally the EMDrive concept, which breaks conservation of energy and newton's laws.
If this indeed doesnt work, humanity will likely live and die in the solar system.
>>29884957
>we can't get there quickly so why even try
ugh
>>29884985
You can try with a generation ship, taking some thousand years to get to alpha centrauri. But that's really not a way to build some sort of interstelllar empire, as you guys usually want to believe.
>>29883421
>based space ww2 fighter/carrier/battleship combat
>>29885001
from "physics won't allow it" to "JK but the idea won't fit the arbitrary limit i've imposed upon it"
those goalposts are almost in the parking lot
>>29884910
Practicality is influenced by mass which is influenced by funding which is influenced by politics.
Hard to get the funding for such a project when no one sees the point of doing such a thing.
What are you expecting to achieve?
When will we see results? In the next hundred years?! People want to see results instantaneously.
Why do you want to do such a thing? "For science!" Isn't a qualified answer.
Also many people aren't exactly enthusiastic about sending a nuclear entity into space.
It is possible to do such a thing with current technology. It's pretty much like you said. Build a vessel around your power source (i.e. Your nuclear reactor), slap on some ion thrusters here and there, add a control system and you pretty much got your spacecraft.
Oh do you want it to be able to sustain life? Well your budget just went up and your design now has to revolve around being able to fare humans and humans are fragile things.
Hopefully I adequately answered your question
>>29884985
There is NO political will to expend massive amounts of resources on interstellar spaceships that may or may not pay off in hundreds of years when we can't even unfuck our infrastructure.
>ugh
Oh, a DUDE, SCIENCE LMAO retard. No wonder you can't critically think.
>>29884894
I am not by my computer at the moment but I should be home in an hour or so. I'll dump some of this thread is still going.
>>29885043
I'm talking purely in terms of physics.
Can you get relativistic exhaust velocities out of an engine that doesn't produce actual nuclear explosions.
If so, I'm thinking you assemble some kind of closed cycle breeder reactor in LEO, and then just use that.
Might take a century or so, but again, it's like 1 billion years until the sun burns out. The biggest variable is what kind of creatures men are, and what that means for the longevity of our species and civilization.
>>29885032
grow the fuck up, kid.
>>29885080
I think what you're looking for is the fusion rocket.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_rocket
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion#MSNW_Magneto-Inertial_Fusion_Driven_Rocket
Though the EM drive definitely has promise to it. I really do hope the tests prove it to actually work like it is claimed to work.
>>29885096
>>29885096
This is a nice thread.
Could you please shitpost in /arg/ instead?
Those faggots have it coming.
>>29885111
>>29885109
Repeat after me:
Interstellar Travel Is Not Possible. Period.
>>29885067
He's not saying any time now or even in the foreseeable future. We should focus on building within the solar system before we think of leaving it.
>>29885122
The word you're looking for is plausible, or feasible.
>>29882406
That is exactly the same thing he said.
Learn to comprehend hat you are reading, fucking idiot.
>>29882341
Not this one. Taking a turn at any speed puts an excessive amount of Gs on the pilot and even the game expresses this. Still a sexy space corvette
>>29885001
>be inna generator ship
>several centuries into your voyage
>back at home causality fucking transportation has been developed
>no one even remembers you and your ship
>next few centuries spent colonizing and exploiting Alpha Centauri
>your ship finally arrives
>it's nothing but clouds of rocks with all fissile materials extracted, spent condoms, fast food wrappers, and vacuum adapted pigeons, roaches, and bitchy cats
>>29885080
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking here.
Exhaust velocities of current ion engines are barely tipping the scale at 50km/s. What do you mean relativistic velocities? Of the exhaust velocity or of the spacecraft?
We aren't quite there to be launching ions at the speed of light without some kind of huge device.
Theoretically spacecrafts are very capable of getting close to the speed of light with ion engines as long as we wait long enough to do so. Little by little the spacecraft gains velocity and we just gotta play the waiting game.
I feel like I completely missed the point of your question however.
>>29885122
With the current state of our extraplanetary vehicles and our understanding of the universe, as of now interstellar travel is unfeasible.
>>29885104
See, my goal isn't direct thrust.
My goal is to use existing nuclear technology to fuel some kind of nice little thruster, along the lines of an ion thruster. The only difference being that I want the velocity of the particles coming out of the thruster to reach a significant percentage of light speed, because we want to get this shit done quickly.
The most fuel-efficient energy system we have is breeder reactors. With a breeder reactor, you can theoretically get energy densities of like 80 million joules per kilogram.
I'm like 90% sure that venting the reactant into space would cut down on that efficiency, and we have no idea of generating power from fusion is even possible.
If you could get consistent 1G acceleration, that would also be nice, but that's optional.
>>29885028
https://youtu.be/fBgjS_xQWXM
>>29885181
Due to centrifugal force* which would be massively less the further the cockpit is forward.
>>29885193
From what I understand, it's impossible for the velocity of a rocket to exceed the velocity of the exhaust coming out of it in the other direction.
This would create a cap on velocity for an electrically powered engine.
I know that particle accelerators can propel ions or neutrons to near light speed.
My question was whether there's something other than weight preventing people from just building a particle accelerator, hooking it up to a breeder reactor, and then selling time shares on Alpha Centauri.
>>29885196
>>29885225
I don't really see anything wrong with this logic, but I'm a computer programmer, not a physicist.
>>29885225
Weight and size, like you said. Current particle accelerators are gigantic and to build one in space would take a huge collective effort from many countries. Yes it's totally possible using one but hot damn that would be one bigggg momma. That thing would require a lot of juice too.
>>29885283
To get to that point, we'd need cheap rockets to get lots of material into space (Space X is working on that nicely). We'd likely need manned space stations to be more ubiquitous, too, to provide for the support of handling materials and people as well.
I think its totally possible with current technology, but costs would kill you, which also sort of means it isn't possible with today's technology. We have to wait for cheap rockets and cheap space stations, then for nations to have the cash and drive to actually build one of these.
>>29885344
Cost. Time. Logistics.
Very possible but damn that would be an incredible build.
Also how do you propose to slowing this huge thing down from near light speed? Flip it around? Haha ;)
>>29885367
Shit, a couple of xenon tanks to turn shit around would be nothing compared to the absurd amount of energy we spent on getting to that velocity.
I guess the real thing is that we need much, much lighter particle accelerators if this shit is gonna work.
We can't be digging up the LHC and then putting half of Switzerland into orbit.
>>29885367
Who said we're slowing this down? We have to throw the first punch at these alien fuckers before they get us so we can show them our true might.
But really would there be anything stopping you from routing the magnetic field in such a way you could just divert the particles out the front instead of the rear?
>>29882429
>reactionless drive
Ok, so a driveless drive then
>>29882341
There will be no fighters in space.
It takes 3-4 times as much fuel to stop, turn around, and come back and stop/land on the return trip as just slamming a missile into the target.
>>29885555
We're already sci fi man.
>>29885487
Im sure there is a way to reverse the flow but particle physics isn't my strong suit. My main focus leans more towards material science engineering.
Imagine taking 30-40 years to get to some fraction of the speed of light and taking another 30-40 years to slow it back down. What a ride that would be.
>>29885816
The nice thing is that time slows down when you're going at a significant portion of light speed.
Assuming 1g of constant acceleration you could make it 9 light-years away in 10 years of on-ship time.
Real speece warfare would be drone fighters if using fighters at all.
The ships would be thousands of miles away from each other moving at incredible speeds either trying to destroy each other with lasers or ridiculously fast projectiles.
Organic bodies would not be able to react quickly enough or deal with G forces associated with the extreme maneuvering required
>>29885225
Me again. Re-read your post
>From what I understand, it's impossible for the velocity of a rocket to exceed the velocity of the exhaust coming out of it in the other direction.
Not true. As long as you have enough fuel you will continually accelerate. Top velocity is only governed by total amount of fuel.
So far we have discussed this in a non-relativistic manner and everything seems really attractive but we must consider also the following:
Considering relativity. The closer and closer we get to the speed of light, the heavier the craft will become which will make it harder and harder to accelerate.
Another more important limiting factor (again) is the fuel. If the craft carries all its fuel, then once it burns through it all, it can't go any more. Fusion isn't a way around this because by E=mc^2 there is a limited energy you can get from a given mass of fuel.
So to recap. We have the tech to go pretty fast but to get near light speed it's not gonna happen because of current theories revolving relativity.
>>29882341
You put the thrusters on a horizontal axis and spin them backwards to stop
>>29882484
Please explain.
>>29885283
And we're talking about accelerating a couple of hydrogen particles.
Accelerating a thin that is 10^20-ish times heavier thing to relativistic speed requires 10^20-ish times more energy, and same thing everytime if you want to brake (basically applying the same force in opposite).
Also, having a probe that moves at relativistic speed is cool, but having a probe that could probe a planet for more than a millisecond may be a bit more interesting
>>29882341
we'd be good if we only made a cube. But then, you would be an easy target, and armor wouldn't be optimal. My best bet would be something elliptica and as flat as possible.
>>29882822
/thread
>>29887614
>My best bet would be something elliptica and as flat as possible.
This desu. Minimize cross-section to reduce probability of being hit, and with thrusters perpendicular to the long axis.
>Prior to engagement, keep long-axis oriented towards sun for minimal thermal and reflective signature
>Once the enemy has detected and fired at you, reorient the vessel's long end towards the threat axis
>Thrust like crazy to evade
The most "realistic" space weapon in Gundums.
To design a realistic space "fighter"
First define your drive systems
1) Current tech
2) Something slightly improved from current tech
3) Space "magic" (includes inertial compensation and gravity control)
Sensors and Electronics (Is stealth possible?)
1) Current tech
2) Something improved from current tech
3) Space "magic" (FTL comms sensors?)
And the beat all end all if a space "fighter" would exist Weapons systems and defensive systems.
Fighters would only exist if the weapon systems had a need for small craft.
1) Current tech
2) Slightly improved current tech (rail guns? directed energy weapons.)(Defenses :"Shields", ECM, "cloaks", stealth, prismatic reflectives.)
3) Space Magic weapons, shields. (Star Trek I'm looking at you)
Also we would need improvements in life support tech to make most of these work.
I liked the space "fighters" in Moonlight Mile
Stealthy little better than our tech spacecraft.
Another example
So the invention of the Anti Capitol ship torpedo carried by small difficult to hit by fixed defenses Torpedo Corvette created a need for a high acceleration patrol fighter with anti corvette weapons and good sensors to catch them as they came inbound from jump distance. The primary weapons are missiles and torpedo type weapons. Smaller craft exist because they can dodge long rang shots and can have higher acceleration. Close in fighting is by fast firing mass drivers and "grapeshot" rounds and missiles
Stealth helps so most most craft are shaped like faceted stingrays that rotate to their least observable angle to the highest threat sensors during the approach phase. Smaller craft can achieve higher accelerations.
With something like that you could describe a future space fighter.
>>29887638
I thought Starfurys were a good idea. Realistic given the technology of the story.
Space warfare will be sabotage, fake beacon signals to throw off navigation, and modular ships that create miles long accelerator tubes that fire steel rods at high speeds at where targets are expected to be when computer calculations say it should be.
>>29882501
quite sad that we never got to see any empire pilot ace, liked the empire fighter way more than the alliance.
>>29882501
>warning enemy make a counterattack
>>29885367
>>29885344
>>29885283
>>29885195
Prohibitive costs getting in the way?
Two words...
Space Slavery.
In the expanse series they flip mid journey and burn with the same force in the opposite direction to gradually deccellerate which also produces the artificial gravity by the continued accel/deccelleration
>>29888493
As in, they also have manuevring thrusters for close querters combat (usually long distance missile combat, or close range --severwl kilometres-- with railguns) but in several day voyages between stations they accell half way, then flip and continue accellerating at the same speed.
>>29882501
>You have no drag to worry about, so your chief concern is designing for ease of maneuvering. That means you want weight as close to the center of gravity as possible to keep rotational moments of inertia low.
so...?
a borg cube is the only logical way to build a spacecraft
>>29888493
Which actually makes more sense than actual gravity manipulation.
>>29882341
Bab5 Starfury's are kind of neat in terms of zero-g movement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nanfQ0mviaU
>>29884744
>fluted
>for space
Jesus...
>>29888933
B5 was great in general.
>>29888576
that means no wings, nigger.
>>29887638
>>29888933
That's not how you spell thunderbolt
>>29888967
They actually did newtonian physics right.
Do you know how much of a miracle that is in sci-fi?
Tried posting some links but it keeps thinking its spam. Will dump pic files instead.
>>29891157
>>29891173
>>29882395
Mini deathstars.
We use this configuration subsea. Most ROVs have 7 thrusters. 4 which contribute to the surge and sway translational degrees of freedom and yaw rotational DOF. Heave is taken care of by the 3 vertical thrusters.
For a spaceship I would use 8 so you can control roll and pitch easier.
Also, you would want to keep your mass as close to the centroid and your thrusters as far out to help with the inertia of the ship.
>>29891210
screw this picture captcha
>>29882341
space fighter would be limited to the acceleration tolerable by humans 10-15G
that is awfully slow in space combat you will be basically a sitting duck for drones and missiles throwing around 100-200Gs.
>>29891278
>not injecting the body with enriched gelatin so voids are filled and bloodlfow/oxygen aren't required.
>>29882341
Flying saucer.
As people have already deduced, a sphere is great for space. Omni directional thruster capabilities works wonders in space. BUT you also need a craft that can work well in atmosphere as well, hence the saucer. A disc has great aerodynamic properties as well.
So a flying saucer is the best. WHy do you think aliens use it.
>>29882501
>You have no drag to worry about, so your chief concern is designing for ease of maneuvering.
with great enough speed in a gas could you get much of the same shit to deal with.
>>29891258
For six degrees of freedom you need twelve thrusters. Eight thrusters only give you four degrees of freedom.
see:
>>29891210
This is your typical setup for a 6 DOF RCS
>>29891290
doesn't matter what you do your internal organs will not hold their shape above 15G, your blood will vacate half or the entirety of your brain and so on.
i don't know maybe you can push human limits even above 20G but that's still goddamn slow while drones are more limited by thrust and fuel efficiency than anything else.
>>29891328
That's not true.
The four lateral thrusters take care of x/y translational and z rotational.
Four vertical thrusters take care of x/y rotational and z translational.
Horizontal thrusters aren't through centerline.
t. Someone who designs ROVs
>>29888958
increasing surface area will cool it faster. Just not as well as if it were surrounded by a medium.
>>29888958
Are you talking about the barrel shroud?
Because heat build up in space is atrocious. I would have fluted the damn barrel just to increase surface area.
>>29891445
>>29891328
Sorry if it's hard to follow, but the color is what thrusters need to fire to get the resulting vector.
You really only need 6 for a 6 DOF system- it's just a lot more inefficient because you end up cancelling out part of your thrust in certain degrees of freedom.
>>29891290
...or just use drones and missiles and save on cost, weight, training, size, etc.
Any engine concept that we have working today it still based off Newtons Laws, primarily Law #3, equal and opposite forces, and Law #2, Force = mass * acceleration.
If you want to accelerate forward, throw a rock behind you, if you want to go forward faster either throw that rock harder, or throw something bigger, like a boulder or a planet.
Its all collected in the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, which effectively describes pretty much all of our current space travel paradigm.
>>29884910
We have ion engines already, they work, but they are slow because of the ratio of the mass of the particulate exhaust vs the mass of the ship or satellite makes acceleration very low. Good for sending satellites to Uranus, bad for a people mover. Nuclear power is not an option due to international treaties on weaponization of space.
>>29885080
Yes, by increasing the mass of the ship and using a less massive particle, but that doesn't really change overall acceleration. You need to increase the efficiency of engine mass to power output. Nuclear will do this. Ignore anyone talking about power, or exhaust velocity alone, its meaningless without the power output/system mass ratio.
>>29885225
Not true, at a basic Newtonian level. If you throw something bigger than you, it will move a little bit and you will go fast.
>>29885185
now THIS is plausible
>>29891691
>Any engine concept that we have working today it still based off Newtons Laws
>inb4 magic microwave box
>>29882395
Your radar cross-section would be shit.
>>29885185
there was a short story about this exact scenario, but I can't remember the name or the author.
>>29891729
Is that magic microwave box something that"we have working today?"
I'm all for non-newtonian propulsion, but until I see some results I'm gonna keep treating it as science fiction.
>>29891783
well I mean it produces thrust, and we still haven't figured out why
I'd refer you to the literal thousands of people far smarter than me discussing it on some spaceflight forums
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.0
>>29891821
*thousands of pages of people
>>29891821
Oh, there's plenty of science behind it, and its high-tech enough that even if they did all the math right, some of the physics equations it supposedly operates on could themselves be wrong.
They need to get real testing going, microgravity at minimum, ideally get something out of Earth's atmosphere.
And as an aside, I was talking earlier about the ratio of power output to system mass? Thats one way, albeit incomplete, to think about the term Delta v that gets used constantly in space travel discussion. Just thought I'd throw that out there for the people who don't have a handle on the term.
>>29883810
my nigga
>>29891783
i thought the results were inconclusive if it really produces thrust or not. not that it was significant in any way.
>>29885001
>taking some thousand years to get to alpha centrauri.
With an Orion class star ship, we could go each way in 50 years.
Drop nukes out the back, detonate and be pushed forward. Do the same thing in the front to slow down.
You can reach 10% the speed of light.
The concept was in approval stage back when Carl Sagan was doing Cosmos and now nobody cares.
>>29888576
good luck
>>29888576
>>29889056
>>29892374
Bad example. Arwings are in atmosphere craft capable of space flight. They have to be aerodynamic as their primary duties are expected to be done on planet. They can still operate effectively in deep space though.
>>29885122
You seem to have confused the words "possible" and "feasible".
>>29885122
Tell that to the rest of us at LMT with a straight face.
>>29892412
also,
>Yet.
>>29885122
fuck you nigga, i will travel between stars!
>>29891953
Typically we don't use power to weight ratio, that's more reserved to wheeled vehicles. What's used is thrust to weight ratio, for both air- and space- crafts. Same difference but still.
>>29883089
only if their "wings" were more cross like then "x" like they would be perfect
>>29883531
>>29892501
the reason I used power instead of thrust is that its easier for the layman to undestand power as that intersection between two masses, thruster and exhaust.
You may or may not be amazed at how many people misunderstand thrust as an engine throwing energy in a direction rather than mass.
>It shoots fire right? Fire makes the rocket go up, what do you mean the fire has mass?
That sort of thing.
In this case we were talking about ion engines so the difference was already a bit clearer, but even in the thread there was a lot of misconceptions about the role mass plays in general. Just trying to avoid confusion.
a battery/cappacitor/laser assembly with attached solar farm, with a huge reaction wheel. motive force is a solar sail. AI-controlled, completely autonomous.
>>29883564
>>29883647
So cute and sex
Daily reminder that the SA-23E Mitchell-Hyundyne Starfury design is so plausible that NASA way back in '95 took a massive interest in the design and to this day has prototype schematics laying around which were created with the intent of possible producing a real world counterpart.
>>29888958
Those aren't flutes but yea they probably increase surface area and thus radiation of heat, since there is no air to carry heat away it probably gets pretty hot. Should probably have a liquid cooling system with big radiators
>>29893084
If you really want to use solar energy just build a giant archimedes mirror out of mylar and satellites.
