Why aircraft carriers won't make sense in space

[Raptor1]

Carriers in space can make sense, it's just that realistic 'space fighters' would be much better analogues to Age of Sail gunboats or modern missile boats than actual aircraft. While they wouldn't have significantly better maneuverability because they operate in the same medium, a space fighter/gunboat could dispense with things like extended life support, heavy protection or high delta-V in favour of better acceleration and more firepower compared to ships which have to have more endurance. There's a few hard (or relatively hard) science fiction universes that make use of ships like that, such as C. J. Cherryh's Alliance-Union universe and David Weber's Honorverse.

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

You know, this does raise a really good question. Usually when we think of assaulting planets, we think of either sending down the troops (Star wars attack of the clones, Avatar, Halo, etc). I mean, it is simply more dramatic to see massed infantry marching in a 19th century style.

It is also much more dramatic to see the use of a death star like superweapons. you get lasers shot from space, nuclear weapons from space, etc.


However, wouldn't the most efficient method for bombarding a planet be simply dragging an asteroid over, and "throw rocks down"?

The problem with threatening a planet with orbital bombardment or asteroid strikes is that if you're actually forced to follow up on those threats in the end you will do some very serious damage to the planet that you are (presumably) trying to take. If the planet refuses to surrender when you control the orbitals and you want both it and its infrastructure intact, you'll have to land troops in order to take control of it.

[joea]

I love this thread, Space Battleship Yamato forever!!



I think Raptor's comment is spot on-the most realistic space combat story I read is one by Arthur C . Clarke called "Earthlight."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthlight

[August]

This is the type of carrier role better analogous to what would be required in a space carrier.

[tater]

Carriers in space won't work because of physics. It's not any more complicated than that. If you can get a high-thrust engine in a fighter, you can put XXXXX of them on a larger craft, and it will go just as fast (or change velocity just as much (delta-v)).

The only possible benefit of small craft is angular acceleration. Large ships cannot rotate quickly or the forces on the outside parts become severe, not to mention the loads on the crew. A ting fighter with the pilot at the CM has less of a problem. Course a tiny fighter carries no propellant, so it is useless.

Frankly, manned fighters are becoming anachronistic on earth, and they will never exist in space. Make a "fighter" that intercepts the target. A drone/missile. Done. Now it only needs the delta-v to get to the target, not get there, then return.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by tater

The only possible benefit of small craft is angular acceleration.

I think weapons management might be a factor. A lot of small craft with potent weapons could be sent against a distant enemy while the much-more-expensive and valuable mother ship could stay safely out of range.

Of course it didn't work for Jefferson's 'Gunboat Navy', but this might be different.

Or not.

[Buddahaid]

Interesting article and he knows his stuff. I just object to the use of science fiction to describe the media referenced. There is little science involved in any of these space battles so the shows are just fantasy. True science fiction does not even need to be futuristic, just deal with real, or projected scientific subjects or discovery.

[tater]

At the range of directed energy weapons, such weapons cannot miss, basically. A small craft can't get into range. Nothing can hide, either. All power is radiated to space.

I think space battles in general would be a lot different then what games and such imagine them to be, probably more about predicting a targets orbital trajectory and throwing ordinance out into an intersecting orbital path that coincides with that target. Probably be quite boring actually.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Excellent article. Thanks for the heads-up.

One of my favorite science-fiction short stories was by Larry Niven, and was written back in the '70s. Sorry I don't remember the name.

In the story one guy is being chased by an enemy, both in ships that use a collection field of some sort to gather loose hydrogen from space, which is then fed into a sort of ramjet. The guy being chased realizes that if he can drop a large enough mass he might collapse the other guy's field, possibly even wrecking his ship. So he figures out a way to do this, and drops a part of his ship behind him. He starts watching his rear with a digital telescope. Six months later he sees a flash of light billions of miles behind that tells him it worked.

Now that was original, and probably realistic.

It was called The Warriors.

Originally Posted by August

This is the type of carrier role better analogous to what would be required in a space carrier.
<snip>

If you have never watched Space: Above and Beyond you should check it out.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

I was called The Warriors.

If that's the one in which the Kzin are a attacking an "unarmed" ship and only a human would think of turning his drive into a weapon, then it's not the one I was thinking of. The story I'm remembering happened as I described. No reaction drive, no real maneuverability. Just a big piece of metal dropped behind, and a flash of light months later. Very tame, very believable.

[edit] It might have been 'The Ethics of Madness', but if so my memory in this case is quiet faulty.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

It was called The Warriors.

If you have never watched Space: Above and Beyond you should check it out.

Chiggy Von Richtofen!


Ugh, the Kzinti...are they Pact or Fleet now?

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

If that's the one in which the Kzin are a attacking an "unarmed" ship and only a human would think of turning his drive into a weapon, then it's not the one I was thinking of. The story I'm remembering happened as I described. No reaction drive, no real maneuverability. Just a big piece of metal dropped behind, and a flash of light months later. Very tame, very believable.

[edit] It might have been 'The Ethics of Madness', but if so my memory in this case is quiet faulty.

Actually the Bussard Ramjet you described is a form of reaction drive.

Never read 'The Ethics of Madness', but the incident you described sounded a lot like 'The Warriors'. Probably just Niven copying himself.

[tater]

Protector was the Niven novel.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Penguin

Thank you for your profound contribution. Have you told your hairdresser about it?
I would like to refer to a post by JU88, a guy who is much more polite than me: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...6&postcount=16 Sorry that your attention span prevented you from looking back into a topic where you posted.

Sorry.
I'll only put these silly posts in unimportant topics, like the American Election, health care, overpopulation, not topics that everyone's talking about: What will the military hardware be 300 years from now when I'm dead?

[Raptor1]

The Ethics of Madness does have a ramscoop chase but it ends with both ships colliding at the end (the pursuer has his life support system fried and sets to autopilot to collide with his opponent's ship). It is probably Protector that Steve is thinking about...