Newtonian Aurora

[Tanj]

I wasn't too taken with the idea of Newtonian Aurora when I first heard about it, but the more I hear the more I like!

That said I'm wondering how (if) fighters and other small craft will work in Newtonian Aurora? Because the way I'm reading it now is that they won't, or at least not in a manner we are at all familiar with. 

[bean]

What about shields that are electro magnetic in nature, that tend to be further from the station then closer. Projectiles tend do be metallic in composition the job of the this shield is to not stop but change the course of the object, so if it can deviate it to miss the station.

Also if the station is orbiting a planet, it would not be stationary. Neither is the planet stationary, with all the influences of space from solar currents to gravity from other planets, long range projectiles that do not have course changing thrusters would more then likely miss. Firing the projectile would cause micro shift in angles in any particles direction so I doubt it would hit. It be like hitting a coin 20km away with a computer stabilised rifle, still not an easy thing to do.

The perturbations on a planetary scale will be very minor (not an issue).  But, yes, projectiles will have to be guided.

On another note, I'm skeptical of the whole "navigation hazard" thing.  Yes, a wreck could be dangerous, but only if you're stupid.  Collision detection in space is easy, due to "constant bearing, decreasing range".  Just burn a little bit in any direction, and you're safe.  Projectiles can track, which makes dodging iffy.  I wouldn't bother tracking objects for navigation purposes beyond a few seconds, on the assumption that past that point, they will have moved the few kilometers needed to be safe.

That said I'm wondering how (if) fighters and other small craft will work in Newtonian Aurora? Because the way I'm reading it now is that they won't, or at least not in a manner we are at all familiar with. 

You are entirely correct.  Space fighters in a Newtonian environment are just plain silly, as the vessel is made less manuverable, and you need 4 times the delta-V.

[ardem]

You are entirely correct.  Space fighters in a Newtonian environment are just plain silly, as the vessel is made less manuverable, and you need 4 times the delta-V.

This part I do not understand, this means that missiles would be less manoeuvrable, based on the logic above the smaller the object the less manoeuvrable they are.

Perhaps I am missing something and need to be explained, my thought was the less mass the easier it is to manoeuvre, as it doesn't require quite as much thrust

[ardem]

Also just a throw away line and I am sure people would call me a crack pot. And I am far from an astrophysicist, so you can take my niavity.

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything

This article talk about temporary particles in a vacuum and dark matter. What if 100 years from now power can be derived from dark matte or capture the temp particles, would that mean you could produce and engine that used space as fuel?

[Hawkeye]

Well, without the fighter engines from regular Aurora, fighters are right out in my book.
Except for the fact, that they are harder to detect due to size, there is simply no advantage over a ship, ´cause, well, a fighter is a spaceship is a spaceship.

If I wanted my fighter to have anything close to what a fighter is meant to have in terms of accel, it would probably have to be 90% fuel/engine. Add in life support and a small firecon and there are perhaps 10 tons for weapons left on a 200t fighther.
I don´t think this would be a winning setup

Reduce engine/fuel, and you have a fighter with the same performance stats as a regular warship, just a lot more fragile, so what´s the point?

[ardem]

Why can't fighters use rather large missile engines?

I cannot see how you can have missiles but not have fighters. A fighter is basicly and engine, fuel and a weapons system. There is no food storage, galley, rec facilities, toilets, showers etc etc etc. Even if they were the same acc speed as a spaceship they would be highly more manoeuvrable, due to not having all the items above.

I cannot see how you can deploy manoeuvrable missiles and not deploy fighters, it like a whole segment of physics is ignored. Even if the fighter engines could accelerate the same as a warship, I still see it usefulness, in the ability to manoeuvres into a position to attack the ship.


On a side note, since now have newtonian physic, wouldn't things like turret placement be critical. Even fighting on a 2D plane, you could place turrets on the rear, top, side, bottom. But placement is important as you could only fire that direction each placement is important example.

Say you place 2 on top, and the enemy is in the rear, only one might be able to fire. I don't see the idea of going to the trouble of Newtonian physics but you can still fire all your weapons, no matter the direction of the enemy.

[Napoleon XIX]

Well, any fighters become rather pointless when you consider putting an extra stage on your missiles: it has almost all the advantages of a pilot, but without the disadvantages of needed a human pilot and the massy life support, being acceleration-limited by the human inside and not being able to put anything useful (I do not count the pilot as useful) in the centre of mass.

[ardem]

Well, any fighters become rather pointless when you consider putting an extra stage on your missiles: it has almost all the advantages of a pilot, but without the disadvantages of needed a human pilot and the massy life support, being acceleration-limited by the human inside and not being able to put anything useful (I do not count the pilot as useful) in the centre of mass.

A pilot give you options a second stage missile cannot, such as change target, abort target without destruction of ordnance, direct to another fleet and engage. Let along the other which is fit weapons other then a missile such as a beam weapon, or something else using it as a sensor scout. You cannot do any of those things with a longer range missile that I can think of.

[Antsan]

A pilot give you options a second stage missile cannot, such as change target, abort target without destruction of ordnance, direct to another fleet and engage.  Let along the other which is fit weapons other then a missile such as a beam weapon, or something else using it as a sensor scout.  You cannot do any of those things with a longer range missile that I can think of.

These are all things a computer can do better then a pilot.  There is no point in space fighters - they are way too expensive.  And I guess the ordnance is less expensive then the propulsion mass required to maintain a fighter.

[UnLimiTeD]

All of you assume that a Fighter is equivalent to a Bomber.
This is not the case.
I can totally see a small space craft with a few rocket thrusters, able to evade incoming fire while shooting railgun slugs at the enemy from a medium distance.
You also assume a fighter is necessarily manned.
Well, call it a drone, then.
In current Aurora, you can use multistage missiles as well, it's just a tiny difference in expenditure that will result from Newtonian physics.

As for bearing, if I remember correctly, Steve has said on multiple occasions that that would turn it too much into a tactical simulation as opposed to strategy. Just the same as it's 2D, after all.

[jseah]

RE: fighters

Presumably, you want to recover your fighters.  That means fighters have to have enough fuel to get out there, stop, get back and stop again. 

Missiles (or suicide fighters) will only need to get there.  If they miss, they miss. 

4x delta-v requirement makes fighters carry too much fuel. 

[UnLimiTeD]

Send fighters.
Wreck enemy.
Follow and pick them up again.
Profit.

[Dutchling]

Hey would still need to stop.

[bean]

This part I do not understand, this means that missiles would be less manoeuvrable, based on the logic above the smaller the object the less manoeuvrable they are.

Perhaps I am missing something and need to be explained, my thought was the less mass the easier it is to manoeuvre, as it doesn't require quite as much thrust

I should have been more clear.  I was comparing them to missiles.
A missile has to go out and kill its target.  A fighter has to accelerate to get to the target, decelerate to a stop, then kill the target and go back to the mothership.
The statement about "less manuverable" also applied as compared to missiles.  The extra mass of the human and his stuff hinders acceleration. 

All of you assume that a Fighter is equivalent to a Bomber.
This is not the case.
I can totally see a small space craft with a few rocket thrusters, able to evade incoming fire while shooting railgun slugs at the enemy from a medium distance.
You also assume a fighter is necessarily manned.
Well, call it a drone, then.
In current Aurora, you can use multistage missiles as well, it's just a tiny difference in expenditure that will result from Newtonian physics.

At medium distance, you can either evade or you can't, and there's no reason that a conventional ship couldn't if a "fighter" can.
I'm in favor of drones, but what makes a fighter is recoverability.  That tacks on delta-V somewhere in the system.

[Din182]

The fighter would be harder to hit, and would probably be able to (de)accelerate faster than a ship.