Spacescifi

Has it ever been tested? Or proven to be accurate at shots? I only express doubt not to win a debate (such are worthless) but only to understand.

Who said humans would be manning fighters? In space it would be an extra mass/inertial liabilty for little gain, as a human just issues commands that an AI could do. X-Ray lasers may or may not be accurate shots due to the explosion *bomb powered lasee), although I will grant you that close range is a huge advantage Also lasers tend to do pinprick damage. They do not do the same level of damage that kinetics do. Unless the power is scaled up a lot. So spaceships could survive a laser strike intact if armored. A missile swarm strike? Not likely. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=prlIhY3e04k

100 kilometers is a short distance to cover. We can make orbit fighting gravity in about 8 min. Fighting gravity is not at issue here, so presumably missiles and fighters could cover the distance even faster. Also lasers are known for being BIG and fragile. Since missiles are fired in swarms anyway, that could defeat a laser battleship. Laser battleships could win if there were enough, but I think it less cost effective considering the size, energy, and waste heat issues. An opponent who relied more on missiles I would think would produce them more numerously and cheaper than the big laser battleships. EDIT: Now if we change the starting distance to farther out like a 1000 kilometers... then lasers, being the long range weapon they are, truly show an advantage... until you have to cool them off anyway by halting from firing.

Perhaps. Never saw it as I do not get that channel. Newtonian combat I also do think is more interesting for a gamer or TV watcher. As opposed to watching people talk for 45 min while all the action happens in mere seconds. Come to think of it... that was how TNG was. They could have stuck to real orbital mechanics and it would not have changed the series much LOL.

Scifi often features war, and to make it entertaining to watch, it is often shown only in a newtonian context. Babylon 5 does this, as for the sake of the plot, ships leaving hyperspace come out matching the speed and trajectory of whatever they want to pursue. Otherwise, if real orbital physics were in play, they would fly past targets and spend several minutes retroburning to make a strafing run. I find it interesting that with speed and trajectory equalized at the beginning of a newtonian space battle, the biggest factor is distance. How close can the battle start? For the sake of discussion, let's go with 100 kilometers (about a third of the way into outer space from earth). With that range, missiles and fighter craft could win the day, since inertia does wonders for newtonian combat. Akin to modern naval combat, space battleships would not exist. It is quite within human technical ability to make a missile accelerate to orbital velocity within 100 kilometers of vacuum. At best there would be the space equvalent of air carriers and missile/flack gunships. What do you think? Did my analysis miss anything of this known scifi trope? EDIT: Lasers would not be the weapon of choice at this range, as a really effective one would make a giant, slow target... at relatively close range. EDIT: If you maximized the starting battle distance to a 1000 kilometers, then bigger space warships would have more of a chance. To offload missiles/fighters and make a run for it before their opponents 'cargo' catches up with them.

Now U see why all the media scifi spaceships have blue plumes. Guess they got that right at least. However what about these? Then again... violet lightning often happens in the rain, so there is that.

Hydrogen is tricky though since people say it cannot be stored for long periods without it all boiling/vaping off. Unless future us figures out a way to prevent that. So spacehip/starship propellant will likely be a variety. One for deep space, and another for launch. Also, I read somewhere that violet colored light gives off more energy than blue, so would'nt a purplish plume be ar a higher energy than blue? Although I do know that a white plume beats all (the sun is blazing white in space).

Haha... there are no secrets. Since all of them boil down to abuse of other lives or themselves or both. Or at least the attempt.

Thanks. So with high energy engines, how wispy the exhaust is depends on how much propellant we are burning. More means higher thrust, more wispy means weaker thrust but more propellant burn time? Or is it the other way around?

The media I presume does not depict rocket plumes in space correctly. Even Ad Astra showed bulb shaped plumes in deep space, and many video games do too. From what I have seen, the answer seems to be that it depends. I have also seen that a funnel cone plume is fairly common in space, but I wonder if it would even be possible to get a bulb shaped plume in space since there is no air pressure to pinch the plume at all. I know plume color depends on propellant plus the heat imparted to it. I have read that super efficient antimatter thermal rockets would not have much of a visible plume, since so little propellant is required for high thrust. So what is it? What do you know on this subject?

I like the idea, but how long we talking? For example, two 500 meter wide spacecraft? Bigger spaceships will require greater length to get proper rotation going. And the reel line must be strong enough not to snap.

It would either be one giant leap or one giant mistake for mankind. Either way, it would hold interest. Not boring as say... mars. Since it woukd be much easier to exploit in LEO.

Try this scenario and science your way to completion. So after decades of drone spacecraft pushing a kilometer wide/thick asteroid into low earth orbit, now it is up to us to figure out a way to optimize it as a spacecraft. How? Drill holes into it for the crew. Place refinining facilities on it and a nuclear feactor for processing. Use processed chemicals from the asteroid as propellant. Pros? You have a lot of propellant mass Cons: Your inertia will be tough to cancel out. It is safe to say that any spacecraft this heavy is going to need to go nuclear. To make most efficient use of it's propellant. Mission: To the moon and mars. Shuttle craft docked to the big rock. How feasible are asteroid spaceships? Would'nt they face possibly structural disassembly issues under 1g or close acceleration? Unless artificially strenghthened with braces? Or does it simply depend on how hard/solid he asteroid is to begin with? Iron good, porous airy holed dirt bad? What are your thoughts on all this?

Another example of reality being nothing like scifi. Space is arguably the most hostile environment to lo life known. It would pribabably be best to use the robo-ships to push a big asteroid inti LEO. It would take several decades, but once there you woul dtill into it and turn it into a giant rock-et with processing facilities to extract liquids/gases that are used for obboard rockets. In the end, it would have far more shielding and mass,than we could get to space withouy rezorting to many launches.

Cute. I remember plenty of times where I have felt like/or said "You're upsetting/scaring the pets/kids" to to teens or adults. Your aliens seem to be inspired by Star Trek's Andorians... right? Although their reproduction does not play much of a role in the show, it's in the lore.

So if we ever get metallic hydtogen it would make great... if expensive to make shielding? EDIT: Or perhaps not? Metals and cosmic rays tend to scatter well.

I was talking about the shield between the cosmic ray and the human body. I also think you knew that. Hydrogen I have read tends to absorb/block radiation well. EDIT: Ditto what he said.

Some materials (it depends) will lead to more deadly scattering of cosmic rays than others. It's a complex subject.

Not really sure what you mean by earth being a shield. For those living on it yeah, the sheer mass of air and the magnetic field do wonders. But the ISS is in virtually vacuum, with only the magnetic field around it. As for the thick shielding, the material used effects what kind of radiation is absorbed. At any rate, if the crew encounter any of these rays that pass through the ship, it won't do them any favors. I read somewhere that six feet thick of concrete would block all those cosmic rays... but trying to launch that would require a bunch of cosmic rays... hello project Orion again .

Interesting. I am curious. How intelligent/non-intelligent are the drones? What? Are they like the workers? What do males and females do? Rule the drones? I toyed with changing humanoid ways of reproduction once. Like what if a humanoid laid eggs? Or what if... well I won't get into changing how reproduction goes down, can't talk about that here. Yet I did find that to be hard... since it defies how we know humans to look. It is easier on non-humanoids

Are you aware that Earth's magnstic field shields the ISS? A stainless steel starship travelinf for months or a year will get more than the ISS. I may not be an expert on rocketry like some here, but I do know stuff across,a wide array of subjects. As a writer it was required.

Smart, but we and he will find out if it is fast enough... or not. Surgery in low or zero g to cut out a tumor would be... interesting.

Humanity has tried just about everything. The inca economy was similar. From my memory of reading on various articles, if an average commoner refused to work they would execute that person. https://www.google.com/amp/s/io9.gizmodo.com/the-greatest-mystery-of-the-inca-empire-was-its-strange-1198541254/amp

True. Months of spaceflight seem counterproductice to that. Faster drives would be ideal, but we know project Orion will probably never see the light of day so it is almost pointless for me to suggest it as a possible solution.

Elon is designing a stainless steel starship. But won't steel react with the cosmic ray particles in space and do damage to the crew? Cancer? They may be shielded by other materials somewhat, but in general, thicker materials shield better, but space is a limited thing on a spaceship optimized for long range travel.