Register to reply

Spaceships and Science fiction

by SHISHKABOB
Tags: fiction, science, spaceships
Share this thread:
Ryan_m_b
#73
Sep8-12, 05:32 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,477
Quote Quote by ImaLooser View Post
"The Golden Age of science fiction is fourteen."
Lol, I think as I've aged I lean more towards hard SF with the occasional spattering of soft. "Big ships go bang with lasers through hyperspace" gets tiresome after puberty.
SHISHKABOB
#74
Sep9-12, 12:51 AM
P: 614
Quote Quote by Ryan_m_b View Post
Lol, I think as I've aged I lean more towards hard SF with the occasional spattering of soft. "Big ships go bang with lasers through hyperspace" gets tiresome after puberty.
While I do agree that sci fi with big space ships with big lasers and explosions is often kind of shallow, I do know one example that contradicts it. It's a show called Legend of the Galactic Heroes, and it's got quite a few big space battles between huge fleets of space ships that fly around like boats, etc.

but the rest of the show is waaaaaay deeper than that. It's definitely not meant for kids.

The space part of it is honestly used to make it more exciting and interesting. It's pretty much a "war in peace in space". In terms of number of characters and breadth of plot and setting.
Ryan_m_b
#75
Sep9-12, 07:49 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,477
Quote Quote by SHISHKABOB View Post
While I do agree that sci fi with big space ships with big lasers and explosions is often kind of shallow, I do know one example that contradicts it. It's a show called Legend of the Galactic Heroes, and it's got quite a few big space battles between huge fleets of space ships that fly around like boats, etc.

but the rest of the show is waaaaaay deeper than that. It's definitely not meant for kids.

The space part of it is honestly used to make it more exciting and interesting. It's pretty much a "war in peace in space". In terms of number of characters and breadth of plot and setting.
I might check it out don't get me wrong, sometimes all I want to do is read something so soft you could spread it on your toast in the morning. But generally I'm more of a 4/4.5 on Mohs scale
Borek
#76
Sep9-12, 08:13 AM
Admin
Borek's Avatar
P: 23,600
Even more off topic:

Quote Quote by Ryan_m_b View Post
Lastly IIRC from the latest batch of Star Wars films George Lucas made a bizzare government for (I forget the name of the planet where the first one is based) wherein they have an elected Queen who sits out two terms maximum and abides by a constitution...
Electing a King? Not a problem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_elections_in_Poland
Ryan_m_b
#77
Sep9-12, 08:32 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,477
Quote Quote by Borek View Post
Even more off topic:



Electing a King? Not a problem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_elections_in_Poland
Ah interesting. Though in keeping with the weirdness of lucas I'm guessing none of these royals had to abide by a two term constitution
SHISHKABOB
#78
Sep9-12, 11:42 PM
P: 614
Quote Quote by Ryan_m_b View Post
I might check it out don't get me wrong, sometimes all I want to do is read something so soft you could spread it on your toast in the morning. But generally I'm more of a 4/4.5 on Mohs scale
I don't have a lot of experience with the mohs scale, but after reading through the different levels I'd toss LoGH into like... somewhere around 2 or 3. The sci-fi is pretty darn soft. They don't ever bother explaining how the FTL travel works, it's just "yeah they get around". It's also not... terribly consistent, I suppose.

But that's just the science fiction aspect of it. What makes it a great show is the characters and the plot. Plenty of politics, discussions on stuff like authoritarianism vs. democracy, the role of the military in a democracy, the merits of authoritarianism/democracy. etc. To be quite honest, the science fiction is almost there just to "spice things up" and make it more interesting. It's just a show about two nations going to war, but transplanted into space.

I think my favorite theme of the show is summed up in a quote by one of the characters: "There are few wars between good and evil; most are between one good and another good."

I could probably count the "truly evil" characters on one hand, maybe two. They're all spread throughout the whole setting. In fact, one of the biggest jackasses of the show is one of the most powerful men in the democratic faction.
GTOM
#79
Dec21-12, 03:30 PM
P: 118
Thank you for your suggestions. :)

Although i have to say i didnt really liked LoGH, but there were good parts I admit. :)
What i despised is Yang Wenlii... the empire attacks a patrol with an another patrol... send there our whole fleet yeah why not... Next time they attack with a BIG fleet, oh it is bound to be a decoy, the real attack, comes from the other direction.
Then the politicians : but Phezzan will not let it... and what did they think, what can a single planet do against a fleet of an empire, if the empire's leader dont respect the status quo?
But again i admit there were good thoughts in it. :)

New BSG i liked it at first :), but at the end of the third season... i hoped the Cylons will win...

On rocketpunk manifesto, we thought about, what can be the closest relative to the pop sci space fighter. (well, maybe its only me, i more like swarms of ships, than big battleships just keep shooting each other)
I think we worked out something : it would be a several hundred tons ship (mostly remote controlled), with nuclear thermo drives, most of its mass is the propellant (monatomic hydrogen). Capable to perform some tenth G acceleration in order to change its orbit, ascend to high orbit from low orbit, then return, or reverse.
Armed with laser jammers, cannons for self defence, (short range) missiles for attack.

It would be the descandent of present day littoral patrol and combat boats, mostly used to maintain peace and order (that is an important task in modern warfare, in Iraq, Afganistan)
In actual combat, unlike a simple missile, it is reusable (yes they will require the support fire of either bigger ships, or planetary defence to keep the mortality rate down) and more adapt in operating in orbital environment, where are cover, background clutter, possibly lots of debris, anti missile mines, satellites, aerial and ground targets.
(In a simple deep space combat, simple missiles are enough, and require less resources. )
The mothership would be the descandant of torpedo boat tenders, it is task is to regroup surface troops and orbital ships between colonies, invade, pacify, secure, aid them.
It can also serve a mobile base for your fleet.

Does that sound a bit plausible?
ImaLooser
#80
Dec22-12, 01:31 AM
P: 570
I think space ships are old school. I don't see how you can take one to Jupiter, much less to another star.

I've got ideas but they are speculative so I ain't saying nuttin.
GTOM
#81
Jan3-13, 07:03 AM
P: 118
I guess you watched StarGate. :) If you have other ideas, you can share me privately.
Ryan_m_b
#82
Jan3-13, 07:28 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,477
Quote Quote by GTOM View Post
Does that sound a bit plausible?
Reading through all of that gives me a distinct reminder of reading accounts of how tacticians circa 1900 thought speculative air battles would be. I'm agreeing with ImaLooser on this point:
Quote Quote by ImaLooser View Post
I think space ships are old school.
The fundamental concept that space craft can be analogised to naval ships automatically handicaps the discussion. The differences between space and the ocean are significant in spite of superficial similarity.
GTOM
#83
Jan3-13, 08:09 AM
P: 118
"The fundamental concept that space craft can be analogised to naval ships "

I know there are several differences, but i find it hard to ignore certain analogies...
The word battlecruiser sounds better than big size rocket with patrol/attack duties. Frigate sounds better then middle sized patrol spacecraft.
Travel lengths, lots of people sharing the hull of a single vehicle, that travels through a hostile environment, also brings up theese analogies.

Should someone come up with entirely new terms?
Ryan_m_b
#84
Jan3-13, 08:40 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,477
The problem is the imposition of similarities based on assumptions. For example: the idea that you would have "patrol ships" because patrolling would be a necessary job of military space craft. To have this discussion properly you have to first determine what situations military space craft would be necessary/desirable for as well as determining what technology will be available for them.
GTOM
#85
Jan4-13, 06:42 AM
P: 118
Ok.

Well it is easier to answer certain questions in an SF operatic setting with the good old magical hyperspace jump drive.

But at first a not so far future scenario i have the following thoughts :

There would be space stations producing stuff requires zero-G, act as luxury hotels for rich people. There would be lunar colonies, mining HE-3 and other things. There would be much cheaper methods to reach orbit than today : induction catapults, laser assisted rockets, skyhooks lifted up by magsailed ships. There can be also orbital habitats for lunar executives who has to be relatively close, but dont want too much exposure to low-G.
There would be near Earth asteroid mines, orbital depots.

Earth still dont has a monolithic government, corporations also have the power of small (or not so small...) nations, there might be corporate warfare, terrorism and organised crime can be also significant.

An orbital fast attack craft (fighter) would have the following jobs : monitor surface, possibly drop kinetic bombs, force suspicious ships (they might smuggle guns or drugs, spies, crime lords, terrorists, or maybe they try to ram you in a 9/11 style) to change their course to your port, abandon resistance. Or maybe destroy them if necessary.
(Well some of theese things supposes that there wont be really strong long range lasers, and kinetics still have an important role.)
A corvette (attack/transport craft) could carry more kinetic bombs, or transport police, military commandos, detainees.

If things get nasty, you might need fast Earth-to-Moon ships, that can reinforce the local ones (frigates, destroyers). (The first two kind of rockets act between LEO and GEO or possibly they land on the surface.)
If things get really bad, you might even need the mothership, that would be a mobile spinning station, that can house lots of fighters, corvettes, marines, supplies.


Later if we could reach even farer, there can be big battleships and destroyers meant to take over particulary valuable asteroid mines, battlecruisers to attack or protect convoys.
GTOM
#86
Jan14-13, 05:44 AM
P: 118
Quote Quote by Ryan_m_b View Post
The bigger they are, the better they are. Assuming for a moment that we are just talking about something like a telescope (that looks for visual and infrared) if the ship has interferometers along it's length then it is in essence a giant telescope (there's an equation for figuring out the resolution of a telescope based on its diameter but I don't remember it). If the ship needs better resolution then what it should do is spread out a bunch of probes in an ever expanding sphere so that they act like one giant telescope rather than loads of tiny ones.

If we're not just talking about telescopes though IIRC a larger ship benefits from being able to house neutrino detectors which would make any ship using a fission or fusion reactor/drive stand out like a flare in a dark field.

Exactly.
Well, i would like to have another question about it.
A Kepler and Hubble can already see many many things, explore the shadows of very distant planets etc. I guess the military could have launched something like that to watch Earth.

Yet as far as i know, that doesnt turned old fashioned recon obsolate...

Why is it? It looked like to me, you could scale up resolution with a huge telescope to see everything you want to see on a certain area of Earth.
Ryan_m_b
#87
Jan14-13, 06:17 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,477
Hubble can't see anything on Earth's surface, it would be a huge blur. Regardless though...is your question serious? The reason why satellites haven't replaces HUMINT is that they have severe limitations like not being able to see in buildings or overhear/steal/gain through talking intelligence locked in people's heads or other media. As far as I'm aware there's no one not on earth worth getting intelligence out of :rollseyes: Also if we do propose space colonisation that doesn't change much. HUMINT operators will have to use whatever travel is available to get to their destination settlement.

One final but oft repeated point: space is big. There is no analogy for a space patrol.
GTOM
#88
Jan14-13, 07:30 AM
P: 118
Ok i wasnt punctual enough : when i meant recon, i thought about locating vehicles or machinegun nests, or troops for example, not people inside a buliding, not secret intelligence. And there are still recon vehicles and drones, not just satellites for the former purpose, or am i wrong?

Well unless we introduce certain operatic things, then ok, you dont use a ship just to detect something in space, but if you want to something with a situation, and local forces (if we talk about a situation on the ground) arent enough, then it is good to have a patrol ship IMHO.
(And it only has to patrol between areas of interest and act if necessary, otherwise its simple presence is threatening to bad guys. At first level i think about an operational area of Earth's orbit or Earth to Moon.)
cephron
#89
Jan14-13, 08:20 AM
P: 125
Quote Quote by Ryan_m_b View Post
If we're not just talking about telescopes though IIRC a larger ship benefits from being able to house neutrino detectors which would make any ship using a fission or fusion reactor/drive stand out like a flare in a dark field.
Fascinating! I'll have to read up on this. Would you basically need multiple neutrino detectors arranged at distance from each other, in order to pick up relative differences and calculate the position of the source? Or can a single detector obtain the direction of the source?

*goes off to wikipedia...*
ImaLooser
#90
Jan15-13, 05:43 AM
P: 570
The thing about space combat is that it is very difficult to hide anything. Even with today's technology tiny things can be tracked.

My guess is that any kind of space combat would be so fast and secretive that it would all be done by computers. There would be no human involvement at all. You would be flying along and either suddenly cease to exist or get a computer message that you just won.

Any ordinary space ship would have a tiny crew that was bored as could be, just waiting for something to repair. Any sort of warship would be completely unmanned.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Science approaching science fiction Science Fiction & Fantasy 26
Science Fiction Science Fiction & Fantasy 45
Science fiction concepts Science Fiction Writing 16
History: Fiction or Science? History & Humanities 3
QED: science meets science fiction General Discussion 16