Building a space ship- How would Space flight and combat work?

[Guest]

So before we start I'm gonna put this as a heads up or somethin'

1. I don't do the math very well
2. I may know some things regarding Physical Science >_>

With that said, lets begin

 

So last night I watched a video from "It's okay to be smart" about Space Combat I'll have the video here.

 

So it got me thinking; how would space flight would work when it come to exploration and combat. We know that most games seem to be at least getting this concept some what right with some few
inaccuracies such as blasters an all. But it led me to making this thread.

So what would our space craft should look like. We need to know that in outer space; one or two of the four things that usually important for an aircraft is not needed which are.

• Lift
• Thrust
• Weight
• Drag

Since in space Weight and Lift may not be needed unless I'm wrong of course. And Blasters would cause the spacecraft to slowdown. So my question is; How would space flight and combat work?

[Rusakov]

Plus energy weapons would be too power consuming in many cases.

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, Rusakov said:

Plus energy weapons would be too power consuming in many cases.

What about solar panels on the wings? Sure that may sound dumb but sunlight from any start depending on mass of the start would be enough to charge up the ship's power and probably be resourceful for blasters.

[Rusakov]

1 hour ago, Quadroline said:

What about solar panels on the wings? Sure that may sound dumb but sunlight from any start depending on mass of the start would be enough to charge up the ship's power and probably be resourceful for blasters.

I think you'd need a lot of panels for that. So more mass, which in turn requires more fuel (ah the dreaded paradox of reaction engines!).

[Ellipzocore]

1 hour ago, Rusakov said:

I think you'd need a lot of panels for that. So more mass, which in turn requires more fuel (ah the dreaded paradox of reaction engines!).

Nuclear reactors would be a must on these kinds of ships. Also, you'd want to build it in space, or on the moon, so as to make it easier to launch.

 

As for weaponry, rail guns and thermonuclear weapons would be the choice candidates. Be careful with the thermonuclear ones, they have a tendency to eradicate all electronics in a certain radius via EMP. To strike ground targets, all you'd really need are some smart kinetic bombardment weapons and you could destroy a decently sized base with just one freefalling projectile.

[Dr. Orange]

>Matter/Antimatter systems for thrust & solar panels for green energy.

>Alcubierre drive

 

[Rusakov]

There's a lot of good information here: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewarintro.php

But when I say there's a lot of good information, I mean there is a lot. It's split up into a bunch of sequential pages and if you have the time then feel free to look around.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Rusakov said:

I think you'd need a lot of panels for that. So more mass, which in turn requires more fuel (ah the dreaded paradox of reaction engines!).

My hopes of flying this baby will never come true then -sniff-
(speaking of which I should make another thread about Atari starships too)

[Vy'drach]

Mass matters, and while weight =/= mass man made craft will likely be made of the same or similar materials and styles so a ship with more weight will be a ship with more mass. Elite: Dangerous has this well as a ship's mass affects a number of things, such as the ability of a ship to enter hyperspace. If you're in a larger ship, you can outright prevent a smaller ship from entering hyperspace by being close enough and large enough, which thereby "mass locks" it. Conversely, the larger ships are more difficult to mass lock by smaller ships, you have to swarm them to mass lock them at that point. It also affects the ability of interstellar travel, with larger jump drives giving more range, but even they max out and when you slap extra systems and armor plating on the ship, your range goes down.

Thrust also still matters because you gotta get that mass moving, more mass needs more thrust.

 

And all of it matters if your ship is gonna enter atmosphere at all.

[Ori]

For starters, while lift and drag are not strictly necessary in a spacecraft, that's only accountable if you're planning on building a craft projected to operate only in vacuum. If you plan on creating a vehicle projected to sustain planetary flight and atmospheric reentry, those two are also important.

Weight is also an important consideration-- that'll affect what kind and power of propulsion will be required to move and rotate the spacecraft.

Also, directed energy weapons are not very cost-effective in my opinion if you're using something like energy sources we know today. I'm gonna have to go with @riccofox96 on this one, but leaning on the safe side and staying with only railguns and other mass drivers and conventional/high explosive projectiles such as missiles/torpedoes instead of nuclear weapons-- the EMP would wreak a bit of havoc on equipment. The problem with those kinetic mass accelerators is that in case they miss the target, at some point they're going to hit... something. And when they do, it'll be hard.

In short: