Realistic spaceships, mecha, and other sci-fi goodies

[Foster]

A tank carries 50 rounds, any of which can seriously kill just about anything (even went to a discussion of T-72 tank-platoon vs a cruiser trapped in the Suez canal).
The servoes of a tank-gun are powerful enough to pile-drive a man's skull into their chest-cavity, or cleave through trees and other 'light' obstacles.

Now, a light powered exo like LockMart's HULC can probably lug a couple of Hellfires up a few flights of stairs and provide enough power for targeting... but I'm sure where you can see where this is going when we just outright assume a squad-worth of HULC is on par with the cost of a platoon of M1A3 Abrams MBTs, but with a fraction of the M1's deployment-range.

To bring their range and mobility up to the tank-platoon, we take our lovable M2 Brads that each cost twice as much as an M1, and outfit it with a quick-charge station, and whatever ammo-relaods are necessary.

At this point, they're mostly useful for clean-up and containment of radiation-spills.

[Sir Beowulf]

I'm not talking about tiny little exoskeletons. I'm talking about suits of armor surrounding the wielder, with mounted missile launchers and chain guns. They'd be.. about nine or ten feet tall, not as large as a big walker mech, but still pretty tall. Also, take for granted the SPARTAN suits, those are pretty cool and powerful. They provide highly increased strength, speed, and power. They also have automatic systems to pump combat fluids into you. They come equipped with personal A.I's, shields that can withstand a pretty powerful punch, and can have all sorts of additions added to make him or her that much powerful.

Too bad it comes at the cost of stealing orphans and training them up and injecting them with all sorts of enhancements which the person might not even survive. They also often end up with soulless fighting machines, but who cares about that?

[Kadaeux]

Well, lets get back on this, lets be a little creative. What if it was sabotoged? A betrayal-- or when the ship was parked it's computers were hacked while it was in docking? I'm not really concerned about "how" to get a virus into a ship-- that's all small stuff. I mean, it's too easy just to make it so the virus deactivates or self-destructs parts of the ship. Something more subtle, like making a modulation to the sensors as to make that blot of energy seem to not be there. That's what I'm looking at.

Sabotage and Betrayal will always be a concern no matter the tech level. As for hacking while its docked.

A: Unauthorised personnel would not be able to get on board.
B: Sensors, Weapons Control etc would not be plugged into an external data connection etc.

The thing is, you seem to be taking 'mecha' as some anime-born concept; over-the-top, so to speak. Now of course super robots are out of the question (but you can't deny their coolness!), but military mecha are not only possible, but capable of doing more than an equivalently-armed tank. There are multiple issues, of course; one being that a tank born in a mecha-capable time would likely also have greater technology put into it which may rival that of a mecha and make it inherently useless, but the mecha will always have certain advantages.

Incorrect. This has been shot down so often it isn't funny. A mech will never, EVER be capable of doing more than an equivalently armed mech. A mech with the same armament as a tank will be considerably larger and heavier than the tank. Cost a MASSIVE amount more and will not have the same armour or defences due to its shape.

The first thing one has to get over is the belief that mecha are undeniably inefficient. Take one look at humans and you'll see that we're fairly efficient with what we have. We can be extremely strong or extremely fast. We're certainly more dexterous than most animals. We can also change our height, either by crouching, standing, or proning... As opposed to a tank, which would likely have one height. Mecha can shoot around corners, theoretically reload themselves (as opposed to a tank which must have a crew to resupply). Getting over the problem of balance is simply an issue in computing and construction, which is entirely possible with today's technology.

Take a look at overly tall or overweight humans. We begin developing problems and flaws.

A mech will not now, nor ever will be able to make its profile smaller than a tank. A mech may be able to shoot around corners. However concealment does not equal cover. A tank would simply shoot THROUGH the corner. For all the effort to make a mecha you could have a Tank do these things for a quarter of the weight and space.

If you keep thinking in terms of 'now' then of course futuristic designs would seem impossible. I'll bet leaving to space was never thought possible, but look at where we are now! Of course absence of evidence to the contrary doesn't necessarily mean that it is possible... We just have to wait and see. I've seen many videos of bipedal robots working better and better with each passing year. I'm of the opinion that we won't ever really have particularly large mecha like those of a toned-down Armored Core 5 or similar, but rather more human-sized ones. Such are definitely more plausible (even today!).

No, you cannot make a mech to the point where it will perform better than a tank. Ever. Because you can put all the same technology into the tank in a far more efficient package that is easier to protect.

I'll agree four-legged mecha would be better, but in some respects they'd be larger and more cumbersome than a two-legged mecha. Each would have its advantages, again.

And yet, it is the two legged mecha "in development" that is proving larger and more cumbersome than multi-legged robots. And drones (track, wheeled, or fly) continue, and will continue, to consistently outperform them for all time.




I will reiterate.

Powered Armour = Possible, Feasible and eventual.
Combat Mecha= Unfeasible, Unworthwhile, Can't do anything something else doesn't do better.

[Sir Beowulf]

Is it bad that talking about mechs gives me a raging hard-on feeling of awesomeness?

[Asuras]

I will reiterate.

Powered Armour = Possible, Feasible and eventual.
Combat Mecha= Unfeasible, Unworthwhile, Can't do anything something else doesn't do better.

Like I stated at the end, I agreed with this. A power armor is just an outer covering for a human, and if you gave it its own skeleton, it could be operated remotely; hence, a mecha. Certainly no building-sized one, but an anthropoid military robot nonetheless.

While a mecha certainly is possible, I agreed with practically everything you replied with to me. A tank gaining tech alongside a mecha would inherently be more advanced than a mecha. Period (unless of course we suddenly stopped working on tanks :P). Though I have to point out that shooting through cover isn't necessarily something you can do every time in every situation.

[Kadaeux]

Though I have to point out that shooting through cover isn't necessarily something you can do every time in every situation.

I have to point out that any cover you could conceivably lean out from behind to shoot some from is also one you will in fact be able to do every time in every situation (at least as far as Tanks are concerned )

[Asuras]

True enough.

[Holeypaladin]

You seem to be thinking I'm talking of a 100% hard sci fi setting. I'm not. This topic was never about how to do make hard sci-fi space ships, but how to make internally consistent space ships that are realistic given the technology guidelines in the universe. Because the necessary technology to even HAVE warships in space is unlikely to be found in a hard sci-fi setting do to several key factors. The number one factor being, in order to even get to the target, you need to have faster than light star travel. Which means we have to redefine the science of the universe.

Redefining the science sets new parameters, but we can still analyze realistic combat around these given parameters.

So we have to reduce that 100% hard science into, say, a 50%, just to have space combats period. Given that we're working with only semi-hard physics, and a few additions, we can now grant that space battles exist.

Now that space battles exist, we can figure out the best way to conduct them.

Your comment about space fighters costing even MORE than my estimate proves my point further: Massive warships are prohibitively expensive. Typical ship lengths are unlikely to exceed those of Nimitz-class carriers by all that much unless they are flagships of some such. They might have a lot more volume than a Nimitz-class, but unlikely to have sufficiently greater length.

Since we're no longer limited by modern technology (I never once said we were), we CAN have force fields and stealth fields, so long as they operate in the manner we say they do. I never said lasers were a good weapon... it's true, their main usefulness is as PD weapons due to their accuracy. But there are other directed-fire weapons that CAN be effective. A powerful particle cannon, plasma cannon, mass driver, etc. is much more powerful than a laser, although slower in their velocity. And of course, missiles. Those massive warships can get torn apart by a single missile hit.

A smaller profile makes for a more difficult target to hit. It's a fact. At the very least, it makes it much harder to get a DIRECT hit, and a glancing blow reduces the energy of an otherwise direct hit, especially if you have some sort of deflector field. The sphere is good for taking on targets from multiple angles. But how are its weapons going to be arrayed? If you're only able to bring a fraction of your firepower to bear on a target that has 100% of its firepower aimed at your center mass, you're going to lose, every time. Getting hit from multiple angles? Definitely favors the sphere, as your firepower is already divided to the point of being able to shoot at targets attacking multiple angles.

Only an idiot builds a ship that can only accelerate in one direction, though. You need a main thrust, a retro thrust, and maneuvering jets in order to maneuver in space. There is no "flipping to decelerate", you instead just alter course slightly, and use your retro thruster if you need to decelerate. A tank-like shape has its strengths and weaknesses, and excels at its strengths. That's... why we use tanks in the first place.

[Kadaeux]

Your comment about space fighters costing even MORE than my estimate proves my point further: Massive warships are prohibitively expensive. Typical ship lengths are unlikely to exceed those of Nimitz-class carriers by all that much unless they are flagships of some such. They might have a lot more volume than a Nimitz-class, but unlikely to have sufficiently greater length.

The problem is you're wrong.

Building the Space Shuttle Endeavour cost about US $1.7 billion (Presumably Including Boosters) Each launch cost about $450 Million, so we can assume that its external tanks + fuel, maintenance etc comes to about that. Making it a $1.35 Billion for the Orbiter Module which weighs roughly 68 Tonnes.

A Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carrier cost 5.9 Billion British pounds. For 2. Each of them has a Displacement of sixty-five thousand tonnes.





This means that PER TONNE a space shuttle costs $19'852'941 USD
This means that PER TONNE OF DISPLACEMENT a Supercarrier from the UK costs $45'384




A space shuttle is 437 times more expensive per ton than a Capital Ship!


Massive Warships won't be prohibitively expensive. It is CHEAPER to build big than it is to build small even if we assume the cost to build them in space doubles the cost per tonne. Fighters, Bombers, Drones cost so much because they are small delicate machines. A Large Warship can have considerably more redundancy built into it.

Since we're no longer limited by modern technology (I never once said we were), we CAN have force fields and stealth fields, so long as they operate in the manner we say they do. I never said lasers were a good weapon... it's true, their main usefulness is as PD weapons due to their accuracy. But there are other directed-fire weapons that CAN be effective. A powerful particle cannon, plasma cannon, mass driver, etc. is much more powerful than a laser, although slower in their velocity. And of course, missiles. Those massive warships can get torn apart by a single missile hit.

*Looks at the title*

Realistic = Hard Scifi.

Don't make the mistake of failing to recognise the difference between realistic and believable.

Also a Plasma Cannon can NEVER be an effective weapon EXCEPT as a Particle Beam. A real "Plasma Gun" would more closely resemble a flamethrower and have the range of a wet fart.

A smaller profile makes for a more difficult target to hit. It's a fact. At the very least, it makes it much harder to get a DIRECT hit, and a glancing blow reduces the energy of an otherwise direct hit, especially if you have some sort of deflector field. The sphere is good for taking on targets from multiple angles. But how are its weapons going to be arrayed? If you're only able to bring a fraction of your firepower to bear on a target that has 100% of its firepower aimed at your center mass, you're going to lose, every time. Getting hit from multiple angles? Definitely favors the sphere, as your firepower is already divided to the point of being able to shoot at targets attacking multiple angles.

If you can hit a 100 metre object at one million kilometres range you can hit a 10 metre object at the same range. It's a fact.

As for your firepower crap. A Sphere, by virtue of its shape should ALWAYS be capable of bringing 50% of its firepower to bear on a target. If the weapons are extended out from the hull, say on pylons, you can increase that figure, if you are using exclusively guided weapons for long-ranged combat you can move that to 100%.

Only an idiot builds a ship that can only accelerate in one direction, though. You need a main thrust, a retro thrust, and maneuvering jets in order to maneuver in space. There is no "flipping to decelerate", you instead just alter course slightly, and use your retro thruster if you need to decelerate. A tank-like shape has its strengths and weaknesses, and excels at its strengths. That's... why we use tanks in the first place.

Yes a tank has its strengths and weaknesses. That are entirely bound in a land-operating atmospheric vehicle.

And yes there is flipping to decelerate because otherwise you've just doubled your mass in Engines and sacrificed a considerable amount of room that could be used for more weapons and defensive systems. You can't afford a luxurious retro-thrust burn to slow down in space warfare. You have to be capable of changing direction and speed as fast as you attained it this REQUIRES your main drive. A retro-thruster, unless absolutely identical to the main drives, will be slower at changing your direction than your main drive will.

And i'll say it in plain english.

A Tanks shape, and Strengths, have NO place in space.

[Holeypaladin]

A space shuttle is not a warship. Last I checked, it didn't have any weapons built into it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

In my analysis of comparing cost of small fighters to that of large warships, I took several things into account.

Direct-fire weapons technology = the same, but the warship's are bigger. Same cost per ton of gun, since they're the exact same guns.

Maneuver engine = the same. The capital ship might have an FTL engine as well, which isn't likely to be cheaper than a maneuver engine. So the same cost per ton. However, the larger ship may require more access space for maintenance on the engines during long-term voyages.

Defensive/shielding/power generation and storage technology = all the same. So the same cost per ton, approximately.

Living quarters/life support/sick bay = different. There is more living space on a larger ship because it's meant for long-term action rather than single-combat engagements.

Cargo = different. A larger ship is either required to carry auxiliary supplies, or they need frequent resupply from a logistics task force. Either can work.

Given that the main differences are in the amount of empty space in the larger ships (crews quarters, access space, etc. is mostly just air and room to breathe, even if they are cramped), I think my estimate that the cost per ton of a large WARSHIP is about half the cost per ton of a small fighter, given that most of the technology is identical, just on a different scale. So if the fighter costs 50 million, the star destroyer costs 25 trillion. If the fighter costs 150 million, the star destroyer costs 75 trillion. A space shuttle is not an accurate comparison, as it doesn't use weapons.

As for the sphere's design... in order to bring half of its firepower to bear on a single target, the weapons need to be mounted on the surface, rather than internally. Most people think of spaceship weapon as being mounted externally on turrets, or configured along the sides like an old-fashioned broadside...

I instead maintain that the best way to mount a weapon for space combat is using a fixed forward-facing spinal mount. Why? Because you can mount MUCH larger guns that way. It's also the way modern fighters mount their machine guns, as well as WW2 fighters. You can mount heavier weapons more efficiently if you point them in one direction and keep most of the volume of the gun INSIDE the ship rather than around the surface.

And this is backed by square-cube mechanics. Heck, a sphere shape actually drastically REDUCES the amount of firepower that can be mounted on surface turrets, due to their proportionally lower surface area for their volume (and proportionally less space for turrets as a result). And then add in that all of your point-defense weaponry HAS to be mounted on surface turrets. You are more or less required to mount the heavy guns inside that massive volume... after all, what else are you going to do with all that space? Empty space is extremely inefficient.

As an aside, I've heard you're a pretty good GM, mister Kadaeux. If nothing else, it's obvious you know what you're talking about, even if we aren't exactly on the same page. Are you familiar with the Traveler RPG, by chance? I don't use it, but I actually read up on it and it uses a lot of the same concepts that I do, but uses a superscience "nuclear dampener" to prevent one-hit kill missiles.

As for how plasma guns work... yeah, they're basically either a plasma-based particle cannon or use more advanced technology to keep a plasma bolt together, such as gravitic fields.

EDIT: I changed the topic as you suggested, as well. Perhaps it is a better vocabulary choice if it gets the proper message across.