Spaceship thread
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /m/ - Mecha
You are currently reading a thread in /m/ - Mecha
Spaceship thread, the last one reached image limit
Old one : >>12405439
>>12424579
Usual interpretation would be that she is really really far away.
It's said that the lack of visual landmark will really fuckup our sense of scale in space.
First woop woop sol bianca motherfuckers
>>12426497
>>12426502
>>12426542
>>12426548
Only the best from Zeon.
>>12426552
Not only is it a badass pirate ship crewed by female space pirates it has a bonus power armor loli
![Sol Bianca [OnDeed] [CF79F08C].mkv_snapshot_16.36_[2015.04.11_23.32.34].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/X3ywTlh.jpg "Sol Bianca [OnDeed] [CF79F08C].mkv_snapshot_16.36_[2015.04.11_23.32.34].jpg")
>>12426988
>>12426485
Sauce for artist
![Sol Bianca 2 [OnDeed] [7C9C8363].mkv_snapshot_32.45_[2015.04.12_00.49.26].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/BUR4nBr.jpg "Sol Bianca 2 [OnDeed] [7C9C8363].mkv_snapshot_32.45_[2015.04.12_00.49.26].jpg")
>>12427038
You can't fuck with the Sol Bianca. 2kg of pasha is worth more than an entire planet but the hull of the sol bianca contains over 5000000kg of pasha so it's more than you can afford pal.
>>12427260
>Have a spaceship worth more than 2,500,000 planets.
>Use it to steal dresses from random cargo ships.
>>12427260
That's right. In-universe this ship costs over two and a half million planets to buy.
The insurance on it must be hideous.
>>12427322
>>12427331
>>12427334
You're apparently a gentleman learned in the ways of Sol Bianca. Is it possible to DL the 6 oavs and the movies anywhere? All the torrents I've found are dead.
>>12427068
More picture in the old topic from here >>12411033 and here >> 12415934
Pivix-page : shoboyuski
It require an account, the author did other drawing a little... gore, and most of its spaceship are black&white or LOW resolution.
But if you don't know what to do of the next hours, go on.
http://www.pixiv.net/member_illust.php?id=51367
He have a deviantart account but there's only 4 pictures on it.
>>12426485
>Meltran repair crews that are fix ships like they're building plamo
best trekfu
>>12427343
Try the hylia, they've got a ton of ddls, even if they're not necessarily the highest quality available.
>>12427322
To be fair that's a paradox with piracy in most setting.
The spaceship is worth more than what they are stealing or carrying as contraband with.
Pirates of the Caribbean would use ships that require no fuel and could be repaired everywhere to steal cargo worth much more in spice or precious metal.
Space pirate are supposed to use ships that require all of the best technology and metals civilization as to offer to steal... what ?
At best they should be using spaceship to steal other spaceships or even more incredible ore. But then they still need a place to repair and sell stolen good without being backed up by an organization that would surpass superpower of today.
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/stellartrade.php#id--Piracy
>>12427343
I originally got them both on bakabt.
>>12428646
In a setting where space travel has been around for a long time, maybe the pirate ship is a very old one. It might also work in a post-apocalyptic setting where galactic civilization has dropped dramatically and an old pirate ship (maybe an ex-military ship from the good old days) would rival a modern ship.
>>12428646
>Space pirate are supposed to use ships that require all of the best technology and metals civilization as to offer to steal... what ?
Are they? EVE Online actually has a pretty good example of if it was going to work that is most likely how it would.
Cheap and numbers.
Am I supposed to let that ship full of kids die in the fourth sunrider mission?
>>12428646
I think space piracy makes most sense in a galactic empire where law and order has broken down.
Pirates are the remains of the space navy threatening to nuke your capital city from orbit if you don't give them the supplies they need to maintain their ships. A protection racket rather than commerce raiding.
In practice it's not much different from the way things used to be when the Empire just taxed you, but the uniforms are much scruffier now.
gonna finally get around to watching space battleship yamato. should I watch 2199 or try and hunt down the original?
>>12429145
unless they changed it, I think they die in a cutscene anyways
Yes, we may never see another Culture novel again, but maybe we can get a movie or something.
Sad though, when he found out he claimed he wanted to work on one last novel that would tell the end of The Culture and what it was that did them in.
>>12430575
I finally dug through the steam community page and found even the devs hate the escort missions. I'll just turn the difficulty down for this one.
>>12430884
Really? I thought in the interviews he said he didn't feel like ending the series, but that he could understand the temptation.
I'm sad that Ken MacLeod is too shy to ghostwrite for Banks, he has his notes
>>12426485
I. Love. Wired. Guns.
>>12427343
Yeah, I got it from bakabt. Don't forget to seed!
>>12428835
Where do you maintain the spaceship working at all ? Where do you get the thousand high-tech parts built (long ago) by skilled engineer. And where do you hide from the Navy who will track you down ?
You could have some sort of magic nanoassembly that can produce anything from raw material. But in that case why would you need to resort to piracy ?
>>12428855
I could never get into Eve Online, I know it have an economy as frustrating as the real one but something tell me the material worth stealing are spaceship part or those famous PLEX that can't be obtained by any other way.
It think it's bound to be artificial in some way.
>>12429995
Well... that's good enough for fiction.
But in practice as long as there would be any way for the planet to strike against the ex-navy without them knowing where to nuke, the balance will break. Ultimatum only work if the victim care for each others and extortion if you won't kill yourself destroying your source of profit.
The problem is that in most case re-establishing the balance would make the ''pirate'' more like rogue but very organized government than the high-sea murderous brigand they were in the old age.
And all the way you have to keep the fictive technology suited for it to happen, that's were many fiction fail.
>>12431481
>as long as there would be any way for the planet to strike against the ex-navy
Not possible, a planet bound civilization has very few options against a militarized starship, even worse if said starship can travel faster than light, appearing out of nowhere and vanishing before any counterattack could be mounted.
Maybe the empire collapsed because the fleets realized it was easier to defend ships than planets, and that nobody could catch them if they didn't want to be found.
>>12431508
I disagree, only quite specific context allow that. FTL amongst them and that's supposing the ship don't have trouble getting the fuel or aren't vulnerable when getting the goods from the planet.
You've certainly heard about all we say about the bottom the gravity well, but Missile (especially future missile) don't need much to get out and can be produced far more easily, and that's supposing the warship can't be damaged by unavoidable bursts of LASER.
I do agree however that a space-based civilization have an advantage over a ground based one, but that's precisely if you can already get everything you need.
At which point it become the plot of Crest/Banner of the Star.
A civilization of Space Elves intending to keep humanity from warring by subjugating space. The only case I remember them needing resources from a planet was water for coolant and because they were in an hurry (in the end they did without).
>>12431733
It was in Banner of the Stars that that was a thing. They wanted to resources from the planet near the Aptic gate. I believe Baron Febdash's asteroid was also used as a mining outpost of some sort? Though thinking back on it, I think it might have been for coolant as well...
They were pretty space bound though. I think there was actually a period of time when the Abh were almost nomadic, even. They had some use for planets in terms of resources, but they were happy to never step foot on one, and probably got most of their resources from asteroids.
>>12431733
>You've certainly heard about all we say about the bottom the gravity well, but Missile (especially future missile) don't need much to get out and can be produced far more easily, and that's supposing the warship can't be damaged by unavoidable bursts of LASER.
It is much easier to sit out of range and just drop rocks on the missile/laser batteries.
A lot of space piracy in SF depends on a sort of Privateer set up. State sponsered pirates that can take their loot (usually intact ship hulls with cargo intact) to their hosting state and sell them there.
>>12431774
Abh were completely space based. They were looking for fuel from the Baron Febdash. He had an antimatter plant in orbit around the sun (which he eventually scuttled to keep out of Lafiel's hands).
Lafiel had never even set foot on a planet until they were forced to in Crest of the Stars.
>>12431810
> It is much easier to sit out of range and just drop rocks on the missile/laser batteries.
If you already have the economic strength to wage battle against a planet then you are already pretty far from space pirate or privateers. You are an organized fleets with information network, someone who refuel you, repair your spaceship and supply you goods beyond what you can do with a few ships.
Aside, you won't know there's a laser until it hit you full force or a missile battery before it appear.
Sure you can menace a planet to let an asteroid blow all life. Only If they can't kill you and reverse it OR if you can obtain what you mean to extort from somewhere else, because then they might call off your bluff
Furthermore, if the planet can (or is the one you depend on to) supply you spaceship parts, then they can build their own spaceship or anti-pirate weapon in greater number everywhere you aren't.
So, do we agree the space pirate tropes is pretty hard to invoke in fiction and usually done wrong ?
Any technology you imagine to MAKE piracy possible can potentially make it (look) uneconomical or allow fight off piracy more easily.
In the earlier case we are hoping gravity well to empower the FTLing pirate, what ifit doesn't matter ? what if anti-gravity exist ? what if you could FTL from the surface of a planet direct to space ? BAM ! Instant Navy from underground dock.
Also, can the pirate even divert an asteroid or FTL one big enough to matter ?
For instance I can find a dozen of ways to fight a Battlestar gone pirate.
>>12432628
>If you already have the economic strength to wage battle against a planet then you are already pretty far from space pirate or privateers.
If you own an interstellar (or even interplanetary) spacecraft, you already have the economic strength to wage battle against a planet. You don't seem to understand the energy differences between the ability to travel in space and not. An interplanetary spacecraft can just drop it's trash on the planet and take out a city. Asteroids or Nukes are just slightly more convenient.
Planet based laser batteries are also a bad idea, because the atmosphere absorbs most of the energy, and missiles can be intercepted. Gravity means it will always be easier for people in space to throw things at the planet than visa versa. Basically, if the planet doesn't have it's own spaceships already in orbit, it's already fucked.
Planets are utterly at the mercy of whoever up above their heads. If the planets are lucky this will be some sort of empire which charges them taxes and maintains law and order (or even better is centered around their planet) If they are unlucky, it will be space gangsters which shake them down for protection.
In both cases the only reliable defense is having people in space who are being paid to protect you. And even then, the imbalance of power means the possibility will always exist for them turning into pirates.
It's hard to have a coherent argument about future warfare, because of all the assumptions that need to be agreed upon first - that's usually what most of the argument ends up revolving around. In general, though, assuming relative parity in tech levels, planetary defenders have an advantage over space-based aggressors, since the defenders have terrain in which and against which to hide weaponry, an atmosphere in which they can quickly disperse waste heat from weapon discharges, a significant advantage in population and industrial capacity, and the aggressor is typically at the end of a long supply line, making resupply and reinforcement much more difficult.
http://www.rocketpunk-manifesto.com/2009/06/space-warfare-i-gravity-well.html
>>12432712
>Planet based laser batteries are also a bad idea, because the atmosphere absorbs most of the energy, and missiles can be intercepted.
This goes both ways, since the besiegers have to fire through that same atmosphere, and it takes significantly more energy to destroy a hardened ground-based target than a spaceship that has to be economical in the weight of its armor. A ground based laser can also maintain a much higher rate of fire since it vents its heat into the atmosphere, as opposed to a vacuum. Also, maintaining operational readiness is probably much easier when you don't have to perform maintenance in zero-g and in a vacuum.
>>12432823
That article assumes FTL does not exist, that's been an assumption for most of the time. If FTL exists, the attackers can appear without warning and escape just as easily.
In a hard sci-fi setting on the other hand, I think he makes the mistake of assuming a planet based economy will have access to the same amounts of energy. In a hard sci-fi setting most power will come from either space based solar arrays, or fusion fueled by elements which are rare on earth such as Helium 3.
Thus space will always have more energy. Space also has a fresh supply of asteroids which can be mined to build more ships/missiles, or just thrown at the planet. All the serious plans to deflect incoming asteroids seem to involve already having ships in orbit, and that the asteroid is undefended.
In hard or soft sci-fi, all a ship needs to do to redirect an asteroid is hover near it long enough for it's gravity to redirect it's course, and the adjustments are so fine that the impact point can be chosen down to the size of a small city. Even if you shoot an asteroid down, you still have to deal with a bunch of smaller asteroids.
In space opera, the pirates can just nuke the major spaceports, in hard sci-fi, the pirates re-direct a planet killing asteroid, and then wait to be paid to redirect it again. In both cases the planets would need their own space force already established in orbit to stop them. If it's on the ground or on the drawing board, it's too late.
>>12432712
You don't understand how much it depend on carefully balanced technology and politic.
Realistically one can wonder if Space Warfare is possible at all (outside war of extermination).
Realistically a gravity well still beat anything but organized fleet or magic spaceship.
And fictionally, most magic used by pirate can be used to fight them or make them unlikely to exist.
A few interstellar spaceship (even FTL) would not be enough to besiege a spacefaring planet as you are basically suggesting, especially not if said 'pirates' are under-equipped.
By making the spaceship all powerful or a fleet capable of warring against a planet you essentially rob them of the need for piracy or if the technology allow anyone to defend from it : the ability to do so.
You talk of intercepting missiles, remember that planetary force can also intercept them. The further away from the planet you are (for safety from laser) the more time it let defender to intercept them.
The only thing that cannot be intercepted is a laser but it put you in range of superior ground-based laser, the atmosphere won't absorb anywhere enough to protect a ship from dozen and more laser-base that can be defended from anything you drop.
On the other hand, can your spaceship fight-off or FTL away against overwhelming amount of (cheap) missile and lasers ?
...the more you look into it, the less it will look like terrifying warship boarding cargoship and running away to sell and spend their loot.... or most other dramatic looking alternative.
Said sort of piracy did stop for reasons after all
>>12432955
If you only search to defend that a space based civilization is easier to defend and more economic than a ground based one. I can only agree.
But if you are trying to speak of a ex-Navy ship going into piracy to sustain living in space for many years or make a profit... then I say you have to consider the ex-Navy a rogue government self-sufficient in resources.
At which point the profit isn't material good but tyrannic influence over the planet.
If we go full FTL and space opera, then all is possible but it will ask a carefully balanced setting and still some suspension of disbelief.
The very form and method of FTL have to allow piracy.
>>12432823
>This goes both ways, since the besiegers have to fire through that same atmosphere, and it takes significantly more energy to destroy a hardened ground-based target than a spaceship that has to be economical in the weight of its armor.
Which is not an issue thanks to kinetic energy weapons.
>>12432955
> In a hard sci-fi setting most power will come from either space based solar arrays, or fusion fueled by elements which are rare on earth such as Helium 3.
And good old antimatter, which would probably not be used on a planets surface.
>>12432998
>Realistically a gravity well still beat anything but organized fleet or magic spaceship.
A planet based civilization is at a major disadvantage to even a single well prepared ship.
The ships major advantage is the gravity wave itself. Laser weapons aren't an issue because the ship would have to come into close orbit to be in range (thanks to diffusion effect of atmosphere), and no ship would do so unless it knew it was safe.
So that leaves missiles. Getting a missile out of a gravity well is not easy. It takes lots of energy (leaving less for adjustments in course/powered engagement of ships anti-missile defenses) and leaves the missile vulnerable to interception.
Meanwhile, the ship only has to go to the asteroid belt, pick out a nice sized rock, give it a little push (properly calculated of course), and wait for it to hit.
Of course it could be intercepted, but they have to see it first (remember that meteorite that fell in Russia recently? No one saw it until it was too late), and then hope they can intercept it. If the first one is properly intercepted, the ship can just throw more, or time multiple to converge at once, oversaturating the planets defenses. This could be done from multiple A.U. out. The ship will always know the plants location.
>>12432998
How is a gravity well anything but a disadvantage?
Most of the elements useful to civilization are sunk deep within the crust. And getting into orbit requires more than 9km/s of delta-v.
On the other hand a space-based civilization can find all the resources it needs in abundant quantities, and can cross the entire solar system for the same amount of energy it takes a planet based on just to get into orbit.
Assuming both have an equal technological development, space will get an overwhelming advantage just for the merit of not being in the words of Char "Weighed down by gravity."
As for missile interception. A missile in space can alter it's course as long as it has delta-v. And gets a massive energy bonus from it's interplanetary velocity.
A missile launched from the surface starts at zero, needs to spend several km/s of delta-v just to get a proper firing solution, and cannot alter it's course during launch without experiencing increadable atmospheric stress.
An incoming missile can evade the interception, an outgoing missile cannot. The equations do not look good for a planet bound civilization that does not already have a space navy ready in orbit to defend it.
If we never see space warfare, it will be because we never manage to make it off this planet. If we do however, planets will become politically irrelevant in stellar politics.
The same problem comes up again when we get to interstellar travel. Each level up requires an exponentially greater amount of energy which will not be available to the civilization which does not make that jump. A class I civ is helpless before a class II which is helpless before a class III.
>>12433048
I should point out, in my space pirate scenario, I was imagining the planet being bullied was a backwater colony even when the empire existed. Closer to the old core worlds, the fleets will probably be better behaved, and might instead be several smaller empires each trying to claim the legitimacy of the first one. The planets they control will also be able to build proper orbital defenses and even new starships.
As for FTL tech. If there are jump points, that's good for empires and bad for pirates. if there are no jump points, that's good for pirates and bad for empires.
Jump points mean you can guard a system, and get a rough idea of where the enemy is likely to hide.
If there are no jump points however, an attack can come from anywhere, and an escaping ship could go anywhere.
Settings where FTL is somewhere in between, such as there are no jump points, but the target must be a solar system within X light years, so hiding in deep space is impossible, then you will get something in between.
The existence of FTL communication and sensors also hurts pirates.
Also, maybe pirates isn't the best word. Space Vikings, Space Barbarians, or Space Gangsters are nomadic spacefaring civilizations that shake non-spacefaring planets down for protection money.
Assuming planets have something they want that they can't make themselves that is.
Harvesting asteroids and uninhabited moons is probably a better bet than beating up inhabited planets for their lunch money. If they can't build starships, they probably won't have anything you like, unless you just want to be a dick.
>>12433071
>How is a gravity well anything but a disadvantage?
If it's a homeworld, or long-settled planet, you can turtle like a motherfucker. Taking it would be effectively impossible, and saturating its defenses only slightly less so. Even with asteroid bombardment. You might not get to keep all the cities you started out with, but the nice thing about a planet is that there's a lot of it to spread out on.
Also, this equal technology levels, but somehow one can't into space is an absurd scenario.
>>12433137
>Space Vikings
We really really really need a show with that.
>>12433181
The hardest thing about space is getting into it. Two civilizations with equal technology levels might not have the same capability if one is already in space and the other isn't.
Just because you know how to do things in space does not mean you have the hardware and infrastructure to launch into it. Once you get there things become much easier.
In The scenario given, the defending planet fully understands everything there is to know about modern space travel. They (the scientists at least) have schematics for space battleships and fully understand the theroy of fusion and antimatter power.
What they do not however have is a supply of Fusible material, or the ability to extract antimater from the ionospheres of gas giants. They also do not have a space elevator, space alloys, or laser satellites because they don't have asteroid mines. They could make any of those if only they had an easy way to get large objects into orbit, but feeding everyone was more important.
They have the technology but not the infrastructure. Infrastructure is the important part. Their infrastructure is, like most planets, tooled up for agriculture and the production of consumer gods. They have a lot more mouths to feed than the space vikings. They also have less available energy, the consumption of which is distributed across the entire planet.
Remember that solar power is much more efficient in space, and that there is no limit to how big you can build your solar panels. Remember fusionable isotopes are more common in space.
Remember asteroids have a much higher concentration of metals than planetary crusts. (Earth is mostly metal, but most of that metal is too deep to ever be used.)
Even if you have the same technology level, starting out in space is a huge advantage in terms of energy and available resources.
>>12433060
> Which is not an issue thanks to kinetic energy weapons.
Ground defense can intercept any of those even more easily.
You might try divert a truly big asteroid but it will take year to do, even using the asteroid as propellant. And if it is far enough the defender can just kill you then divert it. Or build spaceships while you are busy babysitting it.
Only magic spacecraft / universal assembler can allow your fantasy. And if we are allowed those, any point is moot.
> A planet based civilization is at a major disadvantage to even a single well prepared ship.
Nope, nope, nope.
As Hard-SF goes I think you read a lot without understanding much.
You read things out of context and assume the way you want it, like how you assume the planet to sit defenseless while your spacecraft have infinite dV, infinite ammo, & magic FTL.
For starter a laser diffuse up to a certain power at which it doesn't matter anymore, it doesn't help much a ship as far away as 10 light-second away (supposing it even had a chance to dodge LASER). Such laser have no reason to be hard to build in the space future, it's no more complicated than spaceship.
Then realistically a spaceship will have trouble just being heated by a laser. If it can't get rid of its heat faster than it increase it will melt, if and if the hull is heated above crew comfort they'll dies.
Also realistically your spaceship would need magic engine or ten time its weight in propellant to carry all the shit to barely threated a part of a planet.
(1/2)
(2/2)
> As for missile interception.
> An incoming missile can evade the interception, an outgoing missile cannot
Plain bullshit.
You probably misunderstand how orbital mechanic apply here. The interceptor don't need to Match Velocity, it only need to enter on a collision course.
For the spaceship attacker, having a missile/asteroid that fall right on a target, loosing as little speed as possible from atmosphere will actually ask more detlV than for the attacker to hit you if you have to deorbit it. (we intended it to stay around after all).
For the defender a simple laser is enough to blow up a missile, and interception the warship through missile don't need the same amount of dV to orbit, just to intercept.
At any point the defender have the advantage because if the attacking missile must carry a large payload, the interceptor only need to hit it. (seek Kinetic Kill Vehicle)
On this, if planet defense can intercept or survive one megaton bomb, a spacecraft would likely die of hitting any small hunk of metal
The above apply even if the warship don't enter orbit around the planet.
>>12433071
For a self-sufficient civilization it is a disadvantage.
But in the context of a lone spacehip attacking/threatening to, even a fleet will have an hard time achieving anything but slag the planet, including "besieging".
Once again, the condition for piracy are near impossible to recreate, and if I said space warfare might not happen it is because the process is so self-destructive (kessler syndrom) that nothing but extermination can be achieved.
>>12433369
I agree with everything but the Kessler Syndrome. I mean, sure it's theoretically a thing, but I figure if anything, the astronomical (ha) costs/resources required to doing anything in space, even with highly-developed infrastructure would be more of a deterrent than the space trash boogeyman.
>>12433122
> I should point out, in my space pirate scenario, I was imagining the planet being bullied was a backwater colony even when the empire existed.
Then it is a question of economic wealth and manpower.
If you prefer we can stop the other discussion and go on that one. But once again I don't promise an easy solution for anything close to pirate.
> As for FTL tech. If there are jump points, that's good for empires and bad for pirates
Actually I don't see how it could be anything but the reverse for PIRATE to happen.
FTL to anywhere mean a cargo ship can get so secure area undetected. PIRATE can't profit from and you only have to secure fixed position. The Pirate can come from everywhere it won't help if they can't overwhelm anyone. Worse if reinforcement can come instantly.
Jump point however create point that can be spread far in between and where different politic apply. Dysfunctional politic is the best hope for pirate.
See :
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/stellartrade.php#id--Piracy
>>12433321
>>12433369
Dude you seem to be talking out your ass, lasers still diffuse in space radially. Just because your flash light's glass cover is transparent does not mean a light beam travels in an infinite straight line. Why do you assume a Space to ground missile is explosive?
What you don't seem to understand is that living at the BOTTOM ofa gravity well will always mean the attacker gains advantage in sheer gravitational potential energy against you. Where you have to fight said energy to launch interceptors or deal with atmosphere for energy weapons. And an impactor need not "orbit" to impact precisely, enough speed and mass will compensate for a stable and controlled decent.
>>12433418
If the destruction happen over interplanetary or interstellar distance, it won't be a problem too big. But if you have to defend gigantic station that took year to build, it would be an insanely powerful deterrent.
An orbit saturated with debris is like a near perpetual rain of hyper-kinetic slug raining on any fragile spacecraft that isn't carefully guided through.
>>12433489
Looking pretty Zorgon Petterson there.
>>12433488
> Dude you seem to be talking out your ass, lasers still diffuse in space radially. Just because your flash light's glass cover is transparent does not mean a light beam travels in an infinite straight line. Why do you assume a Space to ground missile is explosive?
1) The diffusion for space-future rated laser would be meaningless China can finely damage satellite RIGTH NOW !
2) Kinetic projectile still have to be accelerated and guided into position, it cost propellant for your spaceship that isn't cheap.
You don't understand how orbital mechanic can play against attacking spaceship to the point of rendering null that so called kinetic energy advantage. This isn't because you read about the awesome power of 1kg of metal turned into 10 Megaton kinetic power that it suddenly negate other math that goes against yours
For instance : if your spaceship is passing by the planet without stopping and drop kinetic projectile, all a few surface missiles need to do is be on their trajectory (both your ship and the projectile) to have them explode in far more harmless piece of metal.
In fact I'll go on saying that if your spaceship isn't in orbit around the planet you are actually making a very huge gift to the planet because it will keep your debris off the orbit.
And let's not go on the economy.
I accept a lone spaceship extracting propellant from asteroid.
But if a lone spaceship can extract 'fusion-fuel', produce antimatter and make ammo from asteroid, even mere kinetic slug. This is more like a self-sufficient fleet and it's far removed from piracy, which was the original point
ps: where is the pict from ?
>>12433369
>But in the context of a lone spacehip attacking/threatening to, even a fleet will have an hard time achieving anything but slag the planet, including "besieging".
The point isn't to Besiege but rather hold the planet for ransom.
Redirect some asteroids and then move them back once they pay up.
>>12433585
China can damage a satellite in LEO with what? A laser? a missile? what trajectory was the satellite on? was it executing evasive manoeuvres? Sources are important. I think accelerating a KE projectile in an environment where THERE IS NO DRAG OR GRAVITY WELL is going to a be a little bit easier than doing so from the earth. Case in point, the first two stages of the saturn 5 rocket to get to the moon, the last stage to do the opposite.
And why do you assume that i can't equip my ship with the very same missiles and lasers you have? hell i could even simply enough chunk of a few pieces of the asteroid at your interceptors and keep on trucking. Better yet i could use the same space-age lazers and melt you projectiles from light years away WITHOUT dealing with atmosphere.
And you dont seem to understand that a fast enough elliptical orbit for acceleration does not need to have a stable taxi orbit in order to impact.
>>12433585
I think we've moved on from lone ships to self sufficient fleets preying upon self sufficient planets. Both could have the same technology level, but the fleets will have an advantage.
>>12433585
I think most of these space bombardment scenarios come from the attackers being in a solar orbit and redirecting missiles or rocks towards the planet. In that case the delta-v required to attack would be a lot less than the delta-v required to launch an interceptor.
Nevermind, found the source : Akira.
Fix for : >>12433489
I meant over interplanetary / interstellar trajectory, not distance.
Aside, until now we have just assumed that spacecraft could FTL around but if we have to take into account travel time over brachistochrone trajectory and fuel requirement, I have to add that it actually let years for a planet to actually build up a space force.
Anathem has a good example of this kind of scenario. The planet people win in the end, but only because of plot armor.
Both races have more or less the same tech level, but the starship can more or less destroy any planet bound launch site at will.
>>12433753
>I think most of these space bombardment scenarios come from the attackers being in a solar orbit and redirecting missiles or rocks towards the planet. In that case the delta-v required to attack would be a lot less than the delta-v required to launch an interceptor.
But the two sides goals aren't equivalent at all. The attacker has to meaningfully threaten targets on the planet, and the defender simply has to obviate those threats. And I'm not convinced that the cost (whether in time, or reaction mass) to deflect a city-killing asteroid is less than the cost of launching a much smaller nuclear or kinetic-kill interceptor.
>>12433719
> The point isn't to Besiege but rather hold the planet for ransom.
My point is that trying to do so amount to the same, a planet too poor to defend from one ship would have nothing worth taking. A planet rich enough for will have way to fend of anything but a fleet (which in turn need a bigger profit margin)
And at level of technology the fleet have no reason to resort to piracy except to gain political advantage.
>Redirect some asteroids and then move them back once they pay up.
An actually threatening asteroid will take years to deorbit and if you barely divert it "back" any planet will consider you will do so again any time and will consider more efficient way to deal with you.
>>12433724
> China can damage a satellite in LEO with what? A laser? a missile? what trajectory was the satellite on? was it executing evasive manoeuvres?
They shot it down with a laser of course. Trajectory and evasive maneuver become pointless with laser, it was indeed a satellite in LEO but no fundamental limit keep a ground based laser made in the far future to focus a Terrawatt laser as far as 10 light-minutes aways (if even needed)
However space warship are likely to be like glass cannon if we really want realism (say hello to fragile radiator).
> And why do you assume that i can't equip my ship with the very same missiles and lasers you have?
As said by >>12432823 ground lasers have tremendous cooling and space advantage. Ground defense also have lesser problem of mass, unlike a spaceship. Several laser design are also vulnerably to any other laser fired. The planet can afford to fire lasers from many position, do you ?
Free for you to use anti-warship missiles but do you want to ? All the planet need to do is have roughly anything of any size on a collision course with your spaceship or missiles to utterly fuck them.
You however need quite heavy projectile to do real damage, supposing it hit.
>>12433931
1 the mass would be on an incoming orbit not a stable rotational one, it could be polar, highly elliptic etc
2 this is an ASTEROID not a satellite or base space debris you would have to have multiple stations operating to even begin melting it let alone doing any significant damage to the mass
3 My hypothetical ship does not need to be there, a simple drone for course maintenance would do
4 assuming you can hit the mass and i dont simply divert the course a bit, now What? you have instead a million chunks of a multiple km asteroid headed towards you, potentially even faster than the ship could move it thanks to your ke weapons.
>>12433918
You have a nuclear reactor and electric engines in orbit, and the cost to redirect an asteroid is mostly a time investment. The hardest part of doing ANYTHING in space is getting heavy shit like robotic factories and nuclear reactors into space in the first place.
>>12433753
> I think we've moved on from lone ships to self sufficient fleets preying upon self sufficient planets. Both could have the same technology level, but the fleets will have an advantage.
IF so, a really self-sufficient fleet have NO BUSINESS preying upon "backwater planet" and it have nothing to do anymore with piracy, maybe corsairs.
A more reasonable fleet would not likely be able to repair itself or produce ammo more sophisticated than unguided shell (I'm giving the propellant from ice asteroid but they are "far" away).
While the planet even young & barely colonized will have tremendous advantage of production making the gravity well irrelevant. A planet can afford to mass produce and fire missile&laser from dozen of (hidden) location. A fleet can barely afford its dV budget.
And do we keep "easy FTL" ? If so, this is basically magic. If not time is gonna be an huge factor.
On our first topic : Piracy rely on getting huge gain with little loss, fighting off with great difficultly a backwater planet that can't produce part for you won't pay off.
> I think most of these space bombardment scenarios come from the attackers being in a solar orbit and redirecting missiles or rocks towards the planet.
"these" ? I wasn't sure but are you someone else then that 'lone pirate' guy ?
Anyway, even striking from further away all the defender have to do is hit the projectile far enough away that they won't hit anything they were meant to hit.
The more time you let to the defend the more economical its defense can be.
>>12434040
Let me remind you that the asteroid is your last ditch effort to threaten the colony as we argued that spaceship projectile/missile/laser can all be easily intercepted or do little damage.
At that point I should tell you that even if the planet pretended to agree to your term, there's many way to kill you with the goods delivery method or the goods themselves. Be prepared for constant paranoia.
Now your ASTEROID...supposing it isn't out of the range of a mere pirate thanks to technology.
1) It will take (say) month to redirected an incoming asteroid to the planet using all your resource EVEN if you have planned more propellant in advance, then it will take years for it to arrive to the planet (to save on propellant you must start the furthest point away)
2) By the time you do so the planet have the time to launch and build an actual space fleet, kill you, then redirect the asteroid.
> 3
3) If you have magical FTL, and 'my' planet have too, my planet have the mean to counter you as soon as you start moving that asteroid without even endangering my ship(s) (you'll be the sitting duck)
If my planet somehow don't have FTL, I can still build several spaceship capable of fighting your ship (even if they were poorly made) to actually match velocity with the asteroid and deflect just so slightly so it don't hit the planet.
> 4 now What? you have instead a million chunks of a multiple km asteroid headed towards you,
4) Technically I could deflect your stupid asteroid just building a space laser powerful enough to heat the asteroid so much that it propel its own mass as a propellant. (no you can't afford that on a spaceship)
Then again if all my plenty-of-megaton nuke GUIDE THEMSELVES to hit/match velocity with the asteroid future science will likely have plenty of data to predict a careful push (for space faring civ it must be in space 101).
Once again, I repeat that you are using FTL magic, any amount of similar magic can be used against you.
>>12434234
the asteroid is by no means a "last ditch effort" i could very easily build a small factory on any number of such bodies and have multiple ready to go. But for the sake of simplicity ill say one asteroid.
1:While a month is fair game for initial re-direction by no means will it take YEARS. And why start at the farthest point? Why not simply smash to larger bodies together, then take one of the more sizeable direct-able chunks and start correcting it's course at the last minute?
2: This is assuming all the previous steps are easily discovered, and yes while it is difficult to "hide" anything in space, any system of plentiful resources has HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of asteroid of which the killer is just 1 So your hypothetical space fleet will have to do a good deal of searching. After all the ideal time to reveal and ask ransom is well after your enemies has any chance to retaliate.
3: Im afraid you are completely incorrect when it comes to FTL, assuming the relative body still stays in "the universe" while travelling at such high speeds forget asteroids, i could use a hockey puck and it would do millions megatons of damage, because FTL=Near infinite energy=near infinite potential energy+planet=boom.
But this is all beside the point, assuming their is enough fuel and metal(both of which are plentiful) i could easily automate the process and send a hundred slugs your way. You being on a planet have an inherent disadvantage to dealing with me. Sure you build a fleet, with what? metal that has to be mined and processed and THEN launched into orbit? hell i could build 10 times that simply by not having to deal with such gravity.
>>12434070
>IF so, a really self-sufficient fleet have NO BUSINESS preying upon "backwater planet" and it have nothing to do anymore with piracy, maybe corsairs.
I already explained, they are more like vikings/gangsters, and this only really makes sense if there is something you can only get from inhabited planets (slaves, non vat grown food) or they are just sadistic.
My point is, if a planet which does not have space travel has something a civilization with space travel wants, they will ultimately have to abide by terms set by the space people.
>>12434510
It depends on what the grounder's tech level is. If they have multigigawat lasers, SDI, and near orbital weapons, they can make a campaign so costly that genocide wastes the spacers money (because lets face it, if they want something, they wouldn't just wipe the planet off the face of the galaxy)
>>12434465
>3: Im afraid you are completely incorrect when it comes to FTL, assuming the relative body still stays in "the universe" while travelling at such high speeds forget asteroids, i could use a hockey puck and it would do millions megatons of damage, because FTL=Near infinite energy=near infinite potential energy+planet=boom.
That's making an assumption about how FTL works, which can be diffrent for any setting.
That said, the Alcubre drive in KSP interstellar does that. It moves you, but keeps your absolute velocity the same. Thus, you will exit jump with a fuckton of velocity relative to your destination.
You can however bleed this off by making a series of small jumps into and out of a large gravity well, just sort of fall towards it, then jump back out at the last moment and repeat until you are going slow enough to make a normal orbit with your conventional drives.
Combat with such a system might be interesting. Ships skip breaking might look vulnerable, but due to the high relative velocity, destroying them would sent a cloud of hyper-velocity debris onto the planet's surface, and of course they can always jump out of there if they don't feel safe. There is also the tactic of jumping in, dropping garbage, and jumping out. I suppose anti-ship combat would probably revolve around predicting where the enemy is likely to jump in, and make sure there is a cloud of debris waiting for them.
>>12434529
If they have those, then they probably have their own space force. Those Multigigawat lasers are actually a good way to launch rockets. Similarly, a civilization with only an academic interest in space, will probably never build such things.
>>12428646
Ironically enough in(miniskirt/bodacious space pirates)_ universe, the space pirates are effectively the CIA/OSS, they do the missions for the galactic empire that the Empire will not do, because the Empire is so big, that they usually do not act, and there are corporate space fleets (yes Welandi Yutland stule things), that will try and quietly disrupt the galactic status quo. I mean 3 major missions are either attacking megacorps that have grown too big for their own britches, and the others were all helping settle quiet civil wars in space,
>>12434557
Then if anything it would be like going to say Somalia, at best. Like, unless the situation is like Freefall, where the aliens did not expect humans to be insane and go "FUCK YOU, WE WILL KILL YOU WITH NUCLEAR POWERED DEATH SHIPS, STEAL YOUR SHIT, AND TRAVEL TO SPACE"
>>12434557
like, the only resource I could see them raiding for is food, because food can be grown on planets a hell of a lot easier than a starship, so it becomes like the 1700s, where ships raid coastlines for food (or slaves)
>>12433321
There is also the idea that a planet will have factories and resources, giving it an nearly unlimited supply of interceptor missiles to shoot at incoming objects.
And laser or particle beam batteries can be made planet side, so the old Naval saying you can sink a naval battery but you can't sink a shore battery still holds true.
So then it all comes down to the tech level.
>>12434573
You could have them deliver other non-food refined resources rather than wasting your own time refining say, metals that you dug out of an asteroid peaceably.
>>12434588
You seem to assume that only the planet people get to build shit. Mining asteroids could theoretically produce a lot more than a single planet's worth of ground based factories. The only thing planes can really do better than space is biological life.
>>12434573
"Dirt Food" and "Dirt Bitches" might be enough to inspire raiders if they happen to be sociopathic enough. Heck, maybe the raiders are also cannibals.
>>12431810
>Lafiel had never even set foot on a planet until they were forced to in Crest of the Stars.
That sounds pretty cool, I assume it's worth a watch?
>>12434594
But, if they aren't advanced enough for space, they can't make say the Lunar Titanium or the Hyper fluid alloy Z you need for your ships, but people/food are .. well if you can't make more people or grow food your colony will soon cease to exist.
Space cannibals are funny but I could see that being a huge issue in the 'outer rim', people kidnapping Orion Slave girls to sell them to the inner rim/bringing exotic creatures to people in the Core.
Some designs I did for a game a couple of years agosorry if it's against the rules
Missile type. Both yellow parts would move beneath the ship and shoot a barrage of 20, each missile pod would seperate a few seconds later and you could see them pass by you if you fly straight ahead after shooting.
1/3
>>12434749
Railgun fighter. Nothing special here. after shooting you'd see exhaust from the sides
2/3
>>12434757
Laser fighter. The whole body behind the "ball" rotates very quickly for a few seconds and then shoots a handful of lasers at the same time, pretty much like ZoE
3/3
>>12434771
Also this from a small comic
>>12434749
>>12434757
>>12434771
Pretty cool, would shmup in.
>>12431313
It's a bit hard. Banks could write a good narrative, but he had some odd directions he would often take it.
>>12433931
>They shot it down with a laser of course.
China SHOT a sattelite with a laser in 2006.
It caused no damage.
>No significant damage to the satellites was reported, which indicates that the laser was not aimed at the optical lenses of the satellites. If the laser had been directed at the optical lens of the satellites, then the satellites would have either “gone blind” for a short period of time or lost their sight completely.
They have taken a few out with missiles.
Also you need to go read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress!.
>>12434645
>I assume it's worth a watch
Crest/Banner of the Stars is definitely worth a watch, yes. For me, it's one of my favorite anime series and is an extremely memorable show. Crest doesn't really have much space stuff, since it's somewhat of a prologue that introduces the character and the way they met and formed their friendship. Banner has the actual space fighting stuff, and some of the ideas are interesting.
The author of the novels the series is based on is the kind of author that likes to really dive deep into the lore, and so the Abh have their own language and what-not.
>>12434234
>1) It will take (say) month to redirected an incoming asteroid to the planet using all your resource EVEN if you have planned more propellant in advance, then it will take years for it to arrive to the planet (to save on propellant you must start the furthest point away)
I think I found why you and everyone else in the thread are disagreeing.
You are talking about not much more than modern day tech. While everyone else is talking about somewhat more advanced tech.
If we are in a setting where it takes years to cross a solar system, then yes, piracy is irrelevant.
If, on the other hand, you can cross a solar system in a few days, then we are in a hole different ball game.
>>12434588
>so the old Naval saying you can sink a naval battery but you can't sink a shore battery still holds true.
Kinda.
Except the naval batteries have practically infinite cheap ammo with the effect of a nuclear weapon and can sit well outside of the shore battery range.
>>12434645
It is honestly one of my favorite series ever.
It is an anime based on a Sci-Fi novel series from a Japanese author. The auther really enjoyed making the lore and even created a language and writing system for the Abh.
There are 7 or 8 novels, all of which except the last have been made into an anime.
They follow Jinto (human future duke of a system recently conquered by the Abh) and Lafiel (abh [genetically engineered human] and member of the royal family [the only ones with elf ears...]).
Be careful, some of the fansubs suck (pic related).
>>12431313
>>12430884
>>12435906
I really wouldn't mind reading a couple of side stories in the Culture universe by other authors.
But I fear they wouldn't be any good.
>>12436341
>>12434588
>the old Naval saying you can sink a naval battery but you can't sink a shore battery still holds true.
Even with that saying, nobody considers shore batteries an effective replacement for an actual navy.
It's better to engage the enemy in the open ocean (or deep space) than let them get in range of your fixed defenses.
>>12436363
>and even created a language and writing system
I love me some conlang.
>Anime based on the culture series.
Good idea or bad? Who would voice Skafen-Amtiskaw?
Back after a few hours of sleep.
>>12434465
It feel pointless talking to you. You can't even admit we effectively shot down the lone space "pirate" trope.
You assume magic universal fabricator, FTL & reactionless drive magic for your little ex-Navy pirate and the planet (supposedly wealthy enough to matter when you have such toy) to just sit here idling.
1) Where do you think you are ? KSP ? Hollywood, were sneezing 'detach' asteroid to fall from the sky ? Btw, yes you would also need to toughen the asteroid before you can move chunk of it. The cost of a maneuver in propellant decrease the furthest away you are from your destination. Your spaceship can't have infinite propellant either. We are talking of asteroid several dozen of time your spaceship map.
2) Understatement, you CAN'T HIDE IN SPACE. A basic smartphone sensor would certainly be able to detect any 2000°K that isn't the 3°K background the very second the light reach us.
3) MAGIC, if you have magic, we all get magic. Do I get FTL neutralizer ? Should I deploy my own antigrav fleet ? My mysteriously cheap planet-sized shield ? Can't I teleport bomb/fleet on you ?
Or do you want to skip ahead and pretend the planet is inhabited by tribal primate while your spacecraft is crewed by transhuman god ?
They would be neither space "pirate" or "viking", nothing of more value exist than the magic-spaceship and universal fabricator themselves. Even if you were looking for intelligent crew you'll only find it in very protected system.
> My point is, if a planet which does not have space travel has something a civilization with space travel wants, they will ultimately have to abide by terms set by the space people.
...ASSUMING a minimal level of technology including universal fabricator and also a FTL & also a reaction-less drive. +manpower and resources.
With such assumption your point is moot and I'm angry at you wasting our time.
Remember my first line >>12433048
>>12436320
> China SHOT a sattelite with a laser in 2006.
Pretty sure there was a new shoot later that damaged irremediably the satellite. In any case this is hardly a difficult weapon, we just never got around to develop them.
> Also you need to go read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress!.
Planned.
But since this is Heinlein I expect full rocketpunk technology.
>>12436341
> everyone else
Everyone else agreed over and again that a lone spaceship cannot take on a planet if we assume similar non-bullshit technology. Are you delusional ?
Now, I was actually letting you FTL around although not cheaply and not with an asteroid or infinite ammo. This is why I didn't brought time as a factor way, way, way earlier.
However I won't assume as well reactionless drive that negate mass and effectively break any sort of rational discussion, and also because it made your gravity well advantage pointless.
I won't assume either universal fabricator capable of anything beyond barely space-rated crude fix.
And let's not talk about unexpected consequences... with a few type of fictional FTL drive you should render pointless gravity well and spaceship. With a few sort of gravity control you can make planet into spaceship.
Simply crossing the solar system in a day or magitech don't recreate the condition for piracy easily... I hoped we were above this.
> Except the naval batteries have practically infinite cheap ammo with the effect of a nuclear weapon and can sit well outside of the shore battery range.
As analogy goes this is more like trying to threaten a superpower with a frigate and hoping they don't have cheat-code too.
But nevermind, naval analogy are pointless when it come to space. You've surely read in my other messages why your "cheap ammo" aren't that cheap, can all be intercepted and the naval battery will probably get destroyed if it attempt to do so or accomplish nothing worth.
>>12434645
Definitely
>>12437029
>Implying asteroid factories are any more magic than planet factories. Any real space fleet would probably have to include the ability to resupply and refuel in space.
>A gravity tractor can move an asteroid by just hovering near it for a few years.
>This does not require infinite propellent, electric drives require very little propellent, as long as you have a nuclear reactor or something equally powerful. It's safe to say any self respecting sci-fi spaceship should be able to operate in low thrust/high impulse mode for years before refueling.
>None of these scenarios involved hiding in space. There is a difference between seeing somebody, and being able to send something to intercept them.
>The only "magic" technology discussed was the existence of FTL, asteroid factories and electric engines are both within the realm of possibility today, and would in fact be a requirement for ANY space travel.
>>12438398
Factory =/= universal fabricator.
At best a reasonable space fleet can extract plain hydrogen as propellant and melt ore as unguided projectile.
> Gravity tractor
If you are referring to >>12432955 I'm afraid you don't understand how it would work : they would use their fuel to stay in the right position for years and use as much fuel than if you pushed the asteroid.
The concept was imagined to get around the need to toughen the asteroid, it do so at the cost of needing more time. And in case you didn't see it, you'll need a thruster that can pull.
>None of these scenarios involved hiding in space. There is a difference between seeing somebody, and being able to send something to intercept them.
All your scenarios involve the defending planet idling, with no provision for such event, waiting for your lone ship/fleet, to use unlimited magic to build a way to start threatening them.
>The only "magic" technology discussed was the existence of FTL, asteroid factories and electric engines are both within the realm of possibility today, and would in fact be a requirement for ANY space travel.
FTL alone is magic potentially beyond the wildest dream. Just trying to define it's limitation can destroy your scenario.
Then you talk of Asteroid Factory like a child who have no idea how many intermediate process and how much time it take to turn ore into anything more potent than unguided shell, thus treating it like a universal fabricator which make the whole discussion pointless
Lastly, electric engine doesn't mean negate the mass of the asteroid or the amount of propellant you need, it only mean it will take YEARS even if you tracked down an asteroid that was 100m/s away from hitting the planet (10 years later).
>>12438398
addendum to >>12438893
It came to me that it might not be clear enough to you why I akin your "factory" to "universal fabricator magic".
The problem is that you need "a lot" of factory and a lot of different ores to process them into a worthwhile products (including oxygen, and organic so you'll need ice/water plus the hydrogen). Surely you can build crude things, like unguided shell, but rocket science require the best of the best. And if you have to improvise you'll also need AI and engineer to design.
Realistically a space-based civilization would specialize ships and not clutter even a mining-ship with an omni-factory. Especially if FTL is so easy that you can afford getting spare part from a faraway system.
And in the case of a ex-Navy warship, you wouldn't want to burden it with unnecessary equipment that are likely to be destroy in one hit. This is part of why they would operate likely in fleet in the first place : Redundancy and so one ship can rescue or supply parts to repair the other.
On the way we can wonder about the cost and operation of FTL. If this is something insanely difficult like (say) creating and containing a small unpolarized non-rotating black-hole, you might not want to keep it on a warship at all.
If however the technology is like a metamaterial magnet with funny frequency, you risk making FTL missiles possible, and be assured it don't necessarily make space piracy more likely.
>>12438893
>At best a reasonable space fleet can extract plain hydrogen as propellant and melt ore as unguided projectile.
That's really all you need to threaten a planet.
>they would use their fuel to stay in the right position for years and use as much fuel than if you pushed the asteroid.
Yes, and a good electric engine should be able to run for years without refueling, or at very least, use part of the asteroid as reaction mass.
>All your scenarios involve the defending planet idling, with no provision for such event, waiting for your lone ship/fleet, to use unlimited magic to build a way to start threatening them.
If it takes the attacking force 10 years to move an asteroid, and the defending force 11 years to assemble a space fleet. The attacking force still wins. Even if they get it out in 9 years, they might not be able to stop the rock
You seem to assume the planet can just magically create an entire industry out of thin air. That's just as much magic as you accuse me of. You say I don't understand the process of turning an asteroid into something useful, I say the mass of an asteroid is already perfectly usable both as propellent and a weapon. A planet's mass on the other hand, takes a lot longer to be turned into a functional space force if no existing infrastructure exists. Unless the planet already has spaceflight, they will not be able to do anything about somebody else moving asteroids out in deep space.
>>12439744
You don't need an omni factory for this scenario, just a way to turn ice into propellent. Or enough propellent to run the drive in low thrust high impulse mode for years. (A reasonable capability for any interplanetary or interstellar spacecraft)
There are designs for electric engines with that kind of endurance in existence now, the reason we don't have them is because we can't launch a large nuclear reactor into orbit easily. Any serious space warship would probably have that capability.
And a specialized factory ship capable of making more complex objects probably isn't much more complicated than FTL travel.
>Giving this obnoxious namefag attention
Don't say I didn't warn you.
>>12439744
You say specialize, but consider also the need for at least limited amounts of autonomy and redundancy due to things being separate individual entities (ie ships).
If certain needs are entirely dependent on a single or small group of specialized vessels, not only do you run a horrific risk when any of them are lost to hostile action or accidents, but you also create a disparity in value between the different ships... and their personnel. This is a quick and easy path to classes and economic imbalance...
The argument that any technology used for space piracy will also prevent space piracy is invalidated by the fact that pirates exist on earth.
There is no such thing as a perfect system. There are always places for criminals to make money.
>>12431481
You could be resorting to it because it's something to fucking do.
Also possible is that hitting said other ships replenishes most of the required pieces for your own (you risk using them up faster but obtain replacements more cheaply), and/or that obtaining more bits of ship is one thing and obtaining shit you need to actually LIVE is another entirely.
In many settings piracy is not only a 'choice' but sometimes also forced upon certain populations: Sure, the ship's worth more than its weight in gold, but none of that fucking matters because you live on an asteroid and need some goddamn food and water or YOU DIE. If you can't readily obtain it at good ratios when trading (and remember the other side may very well know what you're desperate for and what you produce cheaply...) you may have no choice.
Piracy can also easily be an action performed with backing. You might HAVE all the spare parts you need, and your job is to fuck up trading lanes of that other civilization.
>>12432998
The "impossibilities" in those manifestos assume shit in a way limited by our current capabilities and research. It's important to keep that in mind, as there were just as many papers in the past decrying the stupid wishful thinking of those idiots that wanted to sit people on giant chemical bombs and send them to the moon, or those deluded fools that thought flying machines would ever have a place or use in warfare (everybody knows that shit can't work).
>>12440149
The problem with that argument, is that it's just as likely future discoveries make the scenario in question even less likely.
What if it turns out that hyperspace exists but the speed of light is actually slower there?
Assuming a future discovery will make something possible is okay for writing sci-fi, but don't go around hoping a future discovery will make particular impossibilities possible. It's just as likely to prove that something we thought possible is impossible.
>>12440167
What I'm saying is that those manifestos are just as worthless as sci-fi.
We COULD end up discovering that all those impossibilities are utterly simple to achieve.
We COULD also end up hitting a massive wall of physics and despair and find out that some barely-.1c variable plasma drive is literally the most effective thing we can ever hope to have.
Or, worst possibility of all, we could discover that while it's all possible, it will never happen for our world because the specific necessary resources are not present, and we will never get to them in less than a million years.
>>12440183
Ahh I see.
Anyways, hard sci-fi and space opera both operate on different assumptions, and these assumptions should be consistent with themselves, if not actual reality.
And a good enough writer can probably find a way to justify something like space piracy if they think about it hard enough. Looking at history,
Piracy in the Mediterranean died down under the roman empire.
Cesar was kidnapped by them early in his life, and personally promised to kill them when he got free, when he became emperor, he made good on that promise and the empire mostly wiped it out.
Then when the empire fell, the pirates came back. This cycle wouldn't be too hard to adapt to sci-fi. The galactic empire rising and falling is already an established troupe of space opera.
Similarly, piracy in the Caribbean came from several superpower nations paying mercenaries to fuck with their rivals without having to start an actual war. This could be something that happens in a cyberpunk/hard sci-fi setting where megacorperations pay space shadowrunners to sabotage rival asteroid mining operations.
I'm not sure of the conditions under which Asian piracy flourished but I imagine it would probably be an interesting story no matter what kind of setting it's written in.
>>12439960
You don't need to assemble a space fleet, just basic chemical rockets to launch interceptors. Even if you somehow didn't have any dedicated space industry (and why wouldn't you? Weather, GPS, and telecommunications satellites are an incredibly important part of the modern economy), you could have assembly lines putting out rockets within a year. If you wanted to get fancy, it wouldn't take much longer for the optics industry to start cranking out high-powered lasers.
>>12440289
Chemical rocket interceptors aren't going to pose much of a threat to a nuclear, fusion, or antimatter powered spacecraft.
The spaceship will have bigger lasers (Remember it already has a reactor and radiators, and won't have to deal with atmospheric scattering), and although it's high impulse low thrust electric engine won't have as much thrust, it will be able to see the interceptors coming and preform maneuvers to take itself out of their effective range by the time they show up.
The ability to launch communications satellites is not the ability to build a real space battleships. Those would require either years of development into heavy lift solutions, or already having orbital infrastructure.
>>12440309
But you're not necessarily trying to destroy the other ship - just obviate the threat that it poses until the natural attrition of being in space takes its toll (or they get bored), and they're forced to retreat or surrender.
And since the you have an overwhelming manufacturing advantage, there is the possibility that you could simply saturate the ship/fleets defenses and potential maneuvering space with relatively simple weapons buses, if you really wanted to see them turned into a debris cloud.
>>12440350
Eliminate the threat that it poses? You mean the asteroid who's course it's redirecting from outside their interception range?
The interceptors won't destroy the asteroid, and if the ship is a purpose built warship, it should be able to shoot down any amount of chemical rocket propelled weapons systems.
Again, this is a planet which has no existing space infrastructure beyond simple rockets and communications satellites. They won't be able to launch anything that would pose a threat within the time-span given. A million canoes will not sink an aircraft carrier.
>>12440630
Orions though,,, like, unless the tech diffrence is absurd, orions are the FUCK YOU, GOT NUKES cheap way. unless the spacers have near magitech, and in which case, why bother with planets.
>>12440630
If those canoes have a closing velocity of several kilometers per second and the kinetic energy equivalent to several tons of TNT, sure they will.
>>12440730
Planet based people are less likely to be using Orion drives or similar than people who can build ships in space. They tend not to be the kind of thing you want in your atmosphere.
It wouldn't be inconceivable that our hypothetical space battleship has an electric drive for cruising (with a reactor that also powers the laser) and a bunch of nuclear warheads that can be used offensively, or to preform quick maneuvers when leaving the electric drive on for days at a time won't cut it, efficiency be damned.
Now, the planet people might have an advantage in nuke production, I'll give them that, but even then they might not be able to catch a space warship, and their supplies aren't unlimited either.
At the end of the day, it might be a better idea to just give the nice space people what they want and pay them the tribute of foodstuff and slaves they demand before they even start moving the asteroid.
>>12440761
Not if they are on fixed ballistic trajectories and the carrier can continue maneuvering for years on it's much more efficient engines. The planet launched interceptors probably won't come anywhere near their targets. Gravity is not in their favor.
>>12438893
Your are a GIGANTIC retard. You still do not seem to understand the initial argument i was making against your idiocy. Your claims of:
>Everyone else agreed over and again that a lone spaceship cannot take on a planet if we assume similar non-bullshit technology.
Are ignorant of the point. Ground based civilisations will always have the disadvantage of GRAVITY. Even at basic levels of technology today, the advantages of space based mining and redirection mean that a singular ship in a well planned incidence could easily threaten a planet: Lets propose a scenario: You start with earth at roughly early 21 century tech, i start with the same level of technology somewhere in the asteroid belt with say an iss sized ship to begin.
I already have the advantages of:
A) mining: low to nill gravity so if i do need mine/build machinery wear is far more limited as the stresses if a corrosive atmosphere and gravitational pressure are gone. I have ready and plentiful resources of iron platinum hydrogen etc...
B) propulsion While yes ion/electric is ideal for "slow missions" as you have failed to remember the point of a gravity tug is it's stability on the towed mass, no re-enforcement necessary. After initial acceleration i could hypothetically switch propulsion to faster more efficient means like (still not entirely possibal) Plasma to tried and true nuclear thermal rocket for final stage approach, all without the concerns of pollution and having advantage of being in space to test and utilise the designs.
C) interception: Seeing as we have dispelled your laughable concepts of system spanning ground based lasers, you are left with guided missiles, the likes of which don't exist and as with everything els if i were to build any i would STILL not have to deal with the gravity well.
>>12440977
They're still forcing the ship to manuever, expending its DeltaV and preventing it from performing useful work. And who said anything about fixed trajectories? It's not like kinetic kill vehicles can't manuever. Heck they can use ion engines for efficiency, and they are much much more efficient than the ship.
>>12441123
A) The appeal of asteroid mining isn't the environments effects on machinery (and a hard vaccuum, extreme heat-differentials, and micro-meteoroids are much harder on equipment than any garden-world's atmosphere), but the lack of volcanic and tectonic action on mineral deposits, making access to things like rare-earth metals much easier. Maintenance is also astronomically more expensive and difficult on space-based equipment.
I can't make heads or tails of your other two points. We don't have guided missle technology? A nuclear engine helps a gravity tug how? What?
>>12441259
Nuclear reactor powers an ion engine. Ion engines are more efficient with more power behind them. An ion engine (or similar electric engine) with a nuclear reactor behind it could conceivably run for years with a small amount of reaction mass. I think every design for a gravity tug is built around a nuclear reactor and ion engines.
The only real reason we haven't colonized the whole solar system right now is because it's really hard to get anything big enough to be useful into orbit, and Orion drives are not politically feasible.
>>12441259
And we don't have guided missile technology that can hit a target on the other side of the solar system if that target can evade or shoot it down.
The enemy will see the interceptor a long way off, and have forever and a day to alter their course by a tiny fraction and evade it completely, or just shoot it down with a laser, probably powered by the above mentioned nuclear reactor.
>>12441296
Ok I am sick and tired of all the people posting about nuclear reactors like they would be common things.
I specalize in their operation and construction. Nuclear reactors are hard. As in, they are very expensive, Uranium only exists on some parts of planets (The Japanese found effectively no Uranium in outer space),, and they can be used to make bombs. I could easily see them being restricted, and more importantly, unless you have access to super complex machinery, they will run out of fuel in.. at best a year or so, because the secrets to a long core are a highly held secret. Pirates simply wouldn't be able to maintain a reactor because the second you fuck up, the core either breaks or kills everyone inside from a critically excursion.
Also, nuclear reactors do not like being cycled very often, so they wouldn't have the spare energy to adjust their thrust.
>>12441296
You are wrong my friend, we do. The Voyager probes did this in the 1980s with basic integrated circuits. A very long ranged missile is simply a space probe.
>>12441296
And I have a planets worth of propellant/reaction to access and you have a spaceships worth? Who's going to run out first?
And, for that matter, what's going to suffer a catastrophic failure first? Your little spaceship with its gossamer lifesupport systems, paper-thin armor, fragile algae-vats and slowly embrittling nuclear reactor that you can't repair, or my planet?
>>12441352
Hell, the issue of spare parts alone is a major concern, stupid little things break over time, which is the huge problem of highly complex technology (Fusion would be even worse with its either huge supercooled magnetic arrays if its ITER style, or laser precise arrays if its Laser style.
>>12440630
>A million canoes will not sink an aircraft carrier.
The major force protection concern when a warship is maneuvering in or out of port is small boat attack. The detection and weapons systems of a warship are intended for use at long range against other warships, not against very fast, very small targets operating within close proximity to the ship. Subsequently ships entering or leaving port almost always have dedicated escorts to prevent small boat attacks.
I don't mean to say anything about spaceships, but as someone who's actually sat on top of a ship with a machine gun in case a small boat attacks it I just wanted to point of that this comment is completely wrong.
Pic related, it's the USS Cole after some terrorists drove up to her in a small bloat and blew a big hole in the side of it.
Warships are super vulnerable when they're not in deep water (really large ships and submarines in particular).
>>12441334
voyager wasn't aiming at tiny targets though it had huge well planned gravitational objects to manoeuvre around.
>>12441323
It really depends on WHAT MODEL OF NUCLEAR PROPULSION! Orion is essentially the easiest because it i merely a bomb with a pusher plate, the model i was referring to was radio thermal where the propellant is cycled through the engine
>>12441465
I know, we had that shit at the labs. Radio Thermal is even worse because you get absurd low amounts of energy from an RTG and you diminish over years of operation. A reactor, a PWR since you can't use BWRs in space, would have constant upkeep to keep it stable. A nuke salt water rocket would depend on super precise fuel to prevent it from going critical simultaneously, and the math for its controlling rods would be a nightmare to say the least. I have seen every sort of nuclear bit because when you work in the US nuke industry, there are like 20 or so jobs, so you know everyone.
>>12441413
god that was a bad time, I came in like what, a year and change after that shit, ugh. I did sub to carrier life before I got out and became the wandering contractor. (Also spaceships would be worse because they would naturally have super thin hulls because every bit of mass matters in space)
>>12441465
Cassini? Dawn? All of the small NASA/JAXA/ESA probes that landed on tiny asteroids/comets?
>>12441465
But the problem with nuclear rocket engines is that they're essentially non-serviceable once they're turned on. It was a huge issue when NASA was planning out the nuclear shuttle - heck, you can't even come near them unless you're in the shadow of its radiation shield, if you value your sperm/ovum/general genetic integrity. You could use robotic telepresence to affect basic repairs - during which you're a sitting duck, of course - but there are limits, and refueling in situ is basically right out.
>>12441612
It's no different to the reactor compartment on a ship at sea.
>>12436370
They wouldn't have the same feel.
>>12441689
Uh, unlike a sea reactor, which normally is inaccessible, this means even in port you can't use a large chunk of area around the ship, and yard periods are a nightmare to say the least. Refueling might be impossible if its core is dense enough, but you would have to rely on robots for any sort of refuel if you had the right design.
>>12441689
Except that a carrier or sub can, and is expected to put into drydock periodically for service and refuelling, and they have tenders and replenishment ships to service at sea, whereas the one spaceship in this scenario has no such luxury, leaving it vulnerable to caprices of its sensitive systems, in the most hostile environment known to man.
Sure, you can build redundancy into its systems, but that just adds significant penalty weight, whereas the automated kinetic kill vehicles gunning for it stay exactly as efficient.
>>12440103
The guy claiming NO SPACE PIRACY (and frankly being quite rude about it in recent posts) also claims there is no piracy now.
>>12441323
>they will run out of fuel in.. at best a year or so, because the secrets to a long core are a highly held secret
I assume you mean long life reactors like on the Super Carriers?
I'd assume if we are a multi solar system civilization, that tech would have already been leaked.
>>12441812
One of the reasons that I don't necessarily see space piracy being a thing (in the sense of attacking and plundering ships) is for the same reason we don't see air piracy in the present day and age. Well, we do have hijackings, and that could be a very real possibility in the spacelanes... But it's one thing for Somalis in motor boats with Kalashnikovs to threaten container ships, but you don't see Somalis in Cesnas (with Kalishnikovs) threatening 777Fs. Which of those two is more equivalent to how interstellar commerce will work?
>>12441323
The assumption here is a space battleship. That assumes it probably has a "reactor" capable of powering a reasonable space drive for long periods of time.
The Planet people may or may not have access to the same sci-fi "Reactors" but I am working under the assumption that they aren't able to send them into space easily because their industrial infrastructure is based around powering cities on the ground rather than interstellar warships. They can't be launched with chemical rockets, and retooling the infrastructure would take too long.
>>12441334
The Voyager space probes are not missiles. Their journey through the solar system relied on a series of very precise gravity slingshot maneuvers. None of which would be practical in wartime.
It only worked because the planets were lined up just right, and because they never had to aim at a target that could move or shoot back.
>>12441413
A ship in port is not a ship at sea. A starship in low earth orbit is not a starship in high solar orbit. This hypothetical starship IS in very deep water, and the canoes will sink before they even get to it.
>>12441923
>Which of those two is more equivalent to how interstellar commerce will work?
Well, we do call them spaceships....
Space somalians in a decrepit old shuttle attempting to board an unarmed space freighter would probably be the equivalent.
Except space is actually big unlike earth, and it would take a Navy a long time to respond.
This thread was pretty cool before the SPACE REALISM fags came along.
Can we just post spaceships? It is not like a single image posted so far has been realistic in the slightest...
>>12441976
>>12441984
>>12441993
>>12442002
>>12442020
>>12442026
>>12442034
Crest/Banner of the Stars ships are so cool.
>>12442034
Thanks for the Wall paper.
>>12442052
I love it.
Resolution is a little low though.
>>12442064
Yeah but it's allot better than most Halo Ring Artwork I've seen.
>>12442064
>>12442082
>>12442110
I personally think she looks better in Alliance blue.
>>12442082
I lie to myself and try to pretend it is a culture Orbital, but it is obviously a Halo.
>>12442136
I'm inclined to agree, I was just going though the Folder as I rebuild it.
Hard Drive shit the bed last month, but this thread is one that's giving me a reason to scour the net for neat ships.
>>12442046
Ships in that series were pretty damn cool, and very sleek. I didn't really recognize the similarity until just now, but the ships in Seikai no Senki are almost like an exaggerated style of the ships from Legend of the Galactic Heroes. The Abh have sleek and beautiful ships, while the humans have ugly and utilitarian ships. It's too bad that there are very few good pictures of the ships from that series.
I always liked the way they handled battles. Maneuverability was becoming more and more important for ships, and larger vessels were basically mine-launching platforms. Cruisers came in handy because of their sheer power and survivability, but smaller ships could easily outnumber and destroy them. What made that series all the better was that it made a point of exampling those dynamics, the way the war was weighted more in favor of faster ships once the mines (which were also missiles) played their part.
>>12439960
> That's really all you need to threaten a planet.
Nope, what have you been reading since the beginning or this discussion ? The asteroid is your last ditch.
> Yes, and a good electric engine should be able to run for years without refueling, or at very least, use part of the asteroid as reaction mass.
Mass driver thruster require an heavy installation a while ship worth of it, other electric engine are so weak you'll take year to redirect the asteroid and still require the deltaV for it.
You are just lucky I'm letting you have FTL that somehow nullify relative velocity
> If it takes the attacking force 10 years to move an asteroid, and the defending force 11 years to assemble a space fleet.
At least you realized it take a space fleet to move move an asteroid and start threatening the planet...
10 years is a long times (btw, I hope your crews is immortal and don't mind), it will definitively not take 11 year to assemble anything capable of thwarting your attempt and deploying it, even if the defender had no FTL but yours was instant teleport.
Anyway,
If you keep on insisting the planet do not -in fact- have tech equivalent to yours, no defense, no ship, no industry, is blind, and is worse than what we would call a backwater colony, this discussion have no point.
Stay on your power fantasy with your fleet (crewed by fanatic immortal) attacking a planet that can't possibly pay you (the whole point was piracy at the start).
>>12441123
Since the beginning you are using the "gravity" excuse to ignore any difference in projection and production. I already said that I considered a space-based civilization superior to a ground based one. It does not make a lone ship, nor a rogue fleet suited for battle (or even production) likely to threaten an self-sufficient planet wealthy enough to provide the same tech (it have always been the case since the start)
But now we cornered your lone ship, forced it into a fleet, just to move an asteroid. All you did is change the rules and run on fallacy plus magical production/survival capability to have it even survive. Unless you really believe that no-gravity is like a superpower that make machine more efficient or intend of ignoring that FTL superscience make all point moot.
ps : I would gladly help you justify realistic pirate if you stopped insulting others' intelligences.
>>12440091
A fleet is "independent" but it don't mean "can build its own parts", here easy FTL favor global efficiency over individual autonomy.
And I would way even more than for naval spaceship since FTL suggest you can't intercept the supply.
>>12440129
You sound reasonable, still make piracy hard to justify in setting that should be near post-scarcity
>>12441812 >>12440103
Liar,
I NEVER claimed there was no piracy today and will never be in the future, only said it is hard to invoke and justify the specific Warship-Piracy (boarding or not) in SF.
Also, piracy today is all small boat, smuggling (with submarine at best), hijacking or fraud.
If I'm rude it's because 'that' other guy is getting on my nerves, pretending he know better when he understand little of what he read.
>>12441976
I kept posting image at least.
>>12442935
>Nope, what have you been reading since the beginning or this discussion ? The asteroid is your last ditch.
I started this discussion, The pirates can and should START by moving the asteroid, and then ask for payment before moving it back. The planet based civilization has very few options as they would have to send interceptors halfway across the solar system to stop this, where the pirate ship will have the upper hand.
The problem with this plan is it takes years, the upside of it, is that it is very low risk and can be un-done at any time. So naturally they should do it first.
Most pre-spaceflight planets would probably elect to pay up before they even finish moving the rock anyways.
>>12442935
Also, we haven't mentioned mass drivers at all. It's been gravity tractors the whole time, Any spaceship with a long endurance drive can pull that off.
>>12444063
>Any spaceship with a long endurance drive can pull that off.
Assuming the spacecraft has infinite supplies, suffers no kind of material problems, is subject to no kind of enemy interference and the crew are willing and able to operate the ship for literally years at a time then yes, any spacecraft can alter the course of an asteroid.
It's just a terrible idea.
>>12428855
I know i'm a bit late to the party, but that is incorrect. Pirate ships in eve are far more expensive and there are less of them to go around compared to navy faction or regular tech 1 hulls. A regular T1 frigate will run you under a single million isk, a navy faction frigate tends to be around 25 million and pirate frigates can be anywhere from 35 million to 75 million depending on the model.
>>12444058
Apparently you are going to ignore any argument that bother your power fantasy.
So I'll just sum up everything :
The planet can intercept all attacker projectiles, and divert your asteroids even before killing you
While the attacker can't get 1 light-minute away from a planet with laser, ground-laser or not.
I told you it is actually possible to deflect an asteroid with big enough laser, your attacker, even a fleet won't have the power to try and will die anywhere a planet range.
As for interceptors, with or even without FTL, a defendind planet will overwhelm your fleet through sheer numbers.
The only target your scenarios can threaten would have nothing you want.
The only wealthy target you can bother will likely kill the pirate as they try to get their reward and ask the rest to surrender.
Realistically your "pirates" would make more money selling their ships and go legal.
>>12444063
> Also, we haven't mentioned mass drivers at all. It's been gravity tractors the whole time, Any spaceship with a long endurance drive can pull that off.
Using the asteroid itself as reaction-mass cannot be done without actually propelling its mass away, which is not how a "gravity tractor" work. And said gravity tractor approach is long and still require the spaceship to have the same dV as if you intended to move the asteroid away.
Any "cheap electric solution" will take dozens of years, any faster solution are too costly for isolated ship/fleet.
"electric drive" don't mean you can cheat physic.
>>12444130
Question, did Eve Online impressive economy go as far as paying (neutral) Pirate to attack spaceship from other coalition ?
(More or less a like giving Letters of Marque)
>>12444463
No, you'd just tell random players where said shipment is and they go gank it FOR FREE because fuck carebears or something like that. EVE's community is toxic and you'll get bullied hard if you ever even think of doing anything non PVP.
Further note to >>12444116
Thinking about it you could attempt to plant a bomb inside the asteroid and cut it in two. But this is once again the sort of solution that would require extensive reinforcement of the asteroid to actually succeed.
Akin to "mine your ammo" you'd have better chance actually melting the asteroid into big contiguous elements that might resist "bomb powered" acceleration and maybe be aimed with further difficulty.
However it will likely also take years, use a lot of energy, and consume some critical materiels.
It can obviously also be intercepted. If you actually had several fleets and support fleet you could overwhelm a badly defended planet like that.
>>12444480
I see... maybe assassin guild ? Those are likely to do Piracy outside contract.
I tested the 2 week free-trial of Eve Online long ago. I don't understand how people can like this game beyond the addiction and fear of loosing month of grinding.
Just getting anywhere eat up hours of subscription, skills-leveling (training of sort) was purely based on time, not skills. And you can get ganked anywhere that isn't high-level.
In short it have all the problem of the MMORPG model. I hoping Star Citizen will avoid all the worst of the F2P model.
>>12433522
that from star citizen?
>>12441612
Looks like a bunch of robots playing basketball in space.
>>12444406
>Apparently you are going to ignore any argument that bother your power fantasy.
Apparently you are going to ignore the entire premise of this scenario.
>The planet can intercept all attacker projectiles, and divert your asteroids even before killing you
How? They don't have any spacecraft that could get to the asteroid in time. There is only one projectile, and it's a fucking asteroid.
>While the attacker can't get 1 light-minute away from a planet with laser, ground-laser or not.
The attacker doesn't need to get anywhere near the planet. And if the planet does have lasers, it will probably also have spacecraft of it's own, so the pirates would avoid it.
>As for interceptors, with or even without FTL, a defendind planet will overwhelm your fleet through sheer numbers.
For the last time this is an undefended planet. The pirates are looking for food and slaves. From the beginning it was said they would be attacking planets that don't have significant orbital infrastructure in place.
>>12444695
No that's Elite Dangerous
For the people who keep assuming the defending planet can pull an infinite amount of interceptors out of their asses.
The first augment was that space piracy would be impossible because any technology that enabled it would also be available to a space government that could prevent it.
The second argument was that piracy happens in places when government control breaks down, either because of a civilizational collapse, or two rival governments hiring privateers. In the former case, a likely scenario would be the remnants of a former imperial fleet shaking down planets which lack space travel in order to gather supplies they can't get elsewhere. Possibly organic food and slaves.
In this scenario, the pirates would avoid planets which are capable of defending themselves. This would be planets roughly the equivalent of present day earth, or earlier. Or perhaps more advanced civilizations which, nevertheless, did not invest in spaceship building capacity.
If an interstellar spacecraft appeared in our solar system, we would not be able to throw a single interceptor at it, let alone the millions some people in this thread seem to imagine. We would be completely unable to prevent them from redirecting asteroids. This is a task that any spacecraft with significant drive endurance can accomplish, and any civilization which itself does not posses comparable spacecraft will be unable to prevent it.
If any planet possesses that capability, the pirates will probably avoid them, or at least negotiate terms more favorable for the planet side. Such civilizations will probably already be paroling their asteroids and altering their orbits to prevent natural impacts.
>>12444882
i heard about that. how many spaceship sims have come out recently? it seems like its really making a comeback.
I came into this thread looking for pictures of good looking spaceships. Half of the thread is, instead, constantly moving goalposts. One side argues one thing while completely disregarding the long-term logistics of maintaining a space vessel or fleet without some sort of centralized support/supply.
And then the goalposts are moved such that we have a collapsed ragtag government, that probably wouldn't be able to offer things in ransom if they were that dysfunctional in the first place. If your tech is so great in the first place that you can move an asteroid and the defending team somehow doesn't even have any tech possible of even trying to resist, what's the point of the asteroid anyways? You might as well just come right up to the planet and give them a big fuck you while taking over the place. After all, they can't stop you anyways.
>>12444627
There are literally hundreds of corporations and dozens of alliances of dedicated mercenaries who routinely take money from people to do various unpleasant things to others.
The scale on which these groups operate varies dramatically but they exist and they exist in every type of space too.
>>12444936
There are two arguments going on that are getting conflated. One is whether space piracy would even be a thing. The other is whether a planet as technologically advanced as the theoretical pirates, yet somehow lacking any sort of space infrastructure would be able to fend them off, because of MUH GRAVITY WELL.
>>12445112
Mah gravity well is a perfectly good reason why a society as technologically well off might lack the infrastructure to build space battleships, even if they understand the principle behind their operation.
The hardest part of doing anything in space is getting into orbit. Once you do so you are halfway to anywhere in the solar system.
>>12444867
> Premise
I'm respecting the premise.
We wanted a planet that can give you the repair parts your pirate(s) ship lack.
=> So it have to have great industrial capacity and spaceships and Defense
We started with one ex-Navy looking for parts to survive,
=> I let you have a fleet that could at refuel and melt unguided kinetic.
I'm not even bothering you with your MAGIC FTL no matter how absurd it is !
On the other hand you have been denying the planet to have the same technology level.
You are in denial that it take ridiculous expectation for you to have your pirates.
And NOW you even want the planet undefended ?
If you get to claim stupidity from a whole planet, then I say your crew is too stupid to redirect an asteroid.
> How? They don't have any spacecraft that could get to the asteroid in time. There is only one projectile, and it's a fucking asteroid.
IN TIME ?!
Even if the defender don't have FTL, in the minimum ten years it will take for you to redirect the asteroid, you could make hundred of chemical rocket capable of doing the travel in month. But now it would likely be a dozen of fusion-powered missile bus and that's would be overkill.
If the defender have even ONE SHIP capable of FTL it can spam/resupply missile from far away and win by attrition.
If the defender for some reason don't use neither missile or interceptor we can still actually divert an asteroid with a laser big enough. And at laser range of the planet any of your ships will die.
>>12444936
NOW that's constructive.
>>12445222
Sure, getting into orbit is difficult (at least in terms of energy required), but we were doing it with slide-rules and graph paper 60 years ago, to say nothing of a future-tech society with access to things like rapid autonomous manufacturing suites and high-level computer-assisted design.
>>12444936
> In this scenario, the pirates would avoid planets which are capable of defending themselves.
But is a planet that isn't capable of defending themselves worth attacking ?
The ability to build and support spaceship & FTL spaceship is the greatest thing a civilization can have.
Hence, pirates capable of producing their own parts would not count as pirate but a civilization.
Yet a pirate that cannot do more than refuel/rearm its spaceship is unlikely make enough money of piracy to sustain themselves.
On the matter I invite to read this
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/stellartrade.php#id--Piracy
You CAN justify pirate in a space setting relatively credible, but you have to try, very, very, very hard, or let down a lot of things.
>>12444959
Well... it's not so much simulation, rather a lot of game that are in space and are less arcade
Kerbal Space Program
A "Dreadnought" (arcade) F2P is coming, it is the clone of another "Fractured space" game
www.fracturedspace.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3CcuJe4kcY
Elite Dangerous
Star Citizen
Older : Infinity (pict is from and old version)
Wayward Terran Frontier (2D game in early access, quite promising)
There might be a few other Indy game devs
>>12445212
> Mah gravity well is a perfectly good reason why a society as technologically well off might lack the infrastructure to build space battleships
No, no, no. stop trying to convince yourself.
It only mean they won't build as fast IN COMPARISON OF a space-based civilization and that against a really really big fleet they can loose on the long term because of the Kessler Syndrome.
It doesn't mean they can't build warship or defend themselves against anybody with a fleet of warship. Just like "no gravity" don't mean you can transform asteroid into everything you want.
>>12445312
Yeah, its comforting to think that we are using everyday smartphone that are more powerful that what the first Moon landing spaceship had, and computer thousand time more powerful than the mission control center who guided the spaceship.
Woah.... the captcha asked me to select picture of Pasta.
How crazy will it get if AI become able some day to overcome that
>>12445389
theres the one from last e3. no mans sky. and i've fund one on steam, been playing it a bit lately, called zigfrak. the space "sim" is really coming back from the dead.
>>12445389
>But is a planet that isn't capable of defending themselves worth attacking ?
As we said, even a primitive planet will have organic food and slaves. And maybe the pirates are just dicks?
You could also say that a planet that's only slightly less advanced than the ships, perhaps one with the same technology but no space infrastructure, might be able to repair but not build a space battleship. They might have nuclear warheads the pirates want, but lack a proper delivery device.
If the planet people won't sell those things to the space people, then the space people can threaten to drop rocks on them, or take them by force.
>>12445389
>No, no, no. stop trying to convince yourself.
I'm sorry, You are wrong. I'm tired of repeating the same arguments over and over. It's pretty well established that the hardest part of space is getting there. If anybody is trying to convince themselves of anything, it's you.
>>12445528
>It's pretty well established that the hardest part of space is getting there.
Errr, not really. In terms of maneuvers getting out of or back into atmosphere is challenging, but maneuvering a spaceship is not the only factor in space travel, moreover it's not an insurmountable problem, if it was space travel would be impossible in the first place.
Also how is a civilization with no aerospace infrastructure even going to be able to respond to the demands of the hypothetical space pirates?
>>12445517
As far as potential plunder goes, the former three are dumb, since no natural food is worth all the propellant you'd use and stress you'd put on your landing craft going trans-atmospheric to retrieve it. *Maybe* seeds and new genetic specimens if your ship's ag-bay got fucked at some point. Slaves are silly, since each additional person you add to a ship represents a ridiculous weight penalty, and additional stress on your supplies and life support systems. It'd probably make more sense to build robots, or vat-grow clones than to hold a planet hostage in order to get dangerously uncooperative slaves. And space is too dangerous and expensive to do something just for the lulz.
>>12444116
>Yarr. Let's see what runs out first - our propellant, our bone density, or our porn supply.
>>12445615
You get this kind of weird "porn entropy" on a ship where at the start of an underway everyone has their own porn, then as time goes people share and exchange porn continuously until everyone eventually has all of the same porn.
