Newtonian Aurora

[Elouda]

Well, fighters would likely have much higher acceleration than regular ships, so they would be capable of evading things at shorter distances then a larger ship. They would also likely be harder to hit in general, as it seems size now matters.

As for the delta-v things, while true, one has to remember that theres no reason that the return trip has to be made at the same speed, or than you couldnt use a series of slingshots to get back if fighting in close proximity to a planet/moon.

[chrislocke2000]

Hmmn, just thinking about those fighter engines, Steve has already given missile engines a better power to weight ratio than ship engines due in part to the fact that the missiles don't need access hatches and maintenance space etc.

Potentially you could extend this reasoning to fighter engines and provide them with a benefit of power to weight v ships engines with a restriction on repairs. Ie you can only carry out repairs in a hanger deck.

I know this departs from the single engine design parameters further but with these benefits aligned with the current benefits of larger engines being more efficient than smaller ones it could help to address the issue of the fighters becoming redundant due to large delta V requirements when compared to missiles.

[bean]

Well, fighters would likely have much higher acceleration than regular ships, so they would be capable of evading things at shorter distances then a larger ship. They would also likely be harder to hit in general, as it seems size now matters.

As for the delta-v things, while true, one has to remember that theres no reason that the return trip has to be made at the same speed, or than you couldnt use a series of slingshots to get back if fighting in close proximity to a planet/moon.

This assumes that evasion is a serious part of combat.  It isn't.  For one thing, random course changes to throw off laser targeting take almost unbelievable amounts of delta-V.  Fighters might be able to pull it off, but why?  What good does it do them?
Kinetics will track their targets.  Period.  So you have to disable them, then dodge a little bit.  No advantage to fighters.
The second point is true, but if you still take a performance hit compared to missiles.  And slingshotting only works if you're not going that fast, and in a very specific place.  Also, you need a planet.  That sounds silly, but think about it.  Going around an enemy planet is a good form of suicide, and what if there's no planet at all?

Actually, why do you want fighters at all?  To extend the range of the launching ship?  That's not going to work, as you can make longer-range missiles instead, and far more cheaply.  To scout?  Drones work just as well, and they can be small and expendable.  To have dogfights in space?  Go ahead, but don't pretend it's realistic.

[sloanjh]

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?

This has been a common science fiction idea for years (for example Charles Sheffield's stuff).  The problem is in the paragraphs about 1/3 of the way down the 2nd page - if you can pull energy from the vacuum, then that means the vacuum is unstable and can go into a different state, where the laws of physics would be different and we'd all die.


As an example of this, think about two populations of (fresh water) fish - "A" that's living in water that's 5 degrees C and "B" that's living in water that's -5C.  In both cases, there's thermal energy in the water.  In case "A" the fish can try to extract that energy by rearranging the water into ice.  The problem is this doesn't work - the "water" state is the stable one.  In case "B", it will work - you'll get energy out of the water by turning it into ice.  The problem is that water likes (energetically) to be in the "ice" state at -5C, and the ice crystal you just made will grow until the whole pond is made out of ice and the fish die because the physical properties of water are very different from those of ice.  If you say "vaccuum" everywhere I said "water", then you've got the argument on the 2nd page....

CAVEATS:
1)  Experts will notice that I was being a little fast and loose about energy vs. free energy above.  The general argument remains the same, though.
2)  There's always the very small chance that some of what we think are very basic physical principles (like the 2nd law of thermodynamics) might not apply at these small scales/high energies.  If so, something weird might come out of it.
3)  If the vacuum is "choppy" (think waves on water), then there might be a way to extract energy from the chop.  I suspect it would be difficult to get much out, though.

John

[LoSboccacc]

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

there have been some theories about extracting energy from vacuum and some experimental observations too.

but I maintain the position that one doesn't really have to make physics works too much in a game.

just imagine the mess of communicating orders to ship that travels at relativistic speeds 

[Elouda]

The idea about better power ratios for fighter engines at the expense of in-space maintenance is a good one.

This assumes that evasion is a serious part of combat.  It isn't.  For one thing, random course changes to throw off laser targeting take almost unbelievable amounts of delta-V.  Fighters might be able to pull it off, but why?  What good does it do them?
Kinetics will track their targets.  Period.  So you have to disable them, then dodge a little bit.  No advantage to fighters.
The second point is true, but if you still take a performance hit compared to missiles.  And slingshotting only works if you're not going that fast, and in a very specific place.  Also, you need a planet.  That sounds silly, but think about it.  Going around an enemy planet is a good form of suicide, and what if there's no planet at all?

My understanding is that evasion will be a big part of 'beam/kinetic' combat in newtonian aurora. Im not aware of any kinetics that can track fighters, only missiles can do that, and they still have to hit, which is where ECM or other defences come into play, along with good acceleration.

[nafaho7]

Why can't fighters use rather large missile engines?

Missile Engines

Engine Technology: Exactly as ship-based engines.  However, the base value of power is doubled on the basis that missile engines have no radiation shielding or maintenance access requirements.

Missile engine technology would not be prudent for manned spacecraft as the missile engine is designed to be used precisely once.   There are a number of things one can afford to have an engine do if you never intend to have that engine be used again.

[chrislocke2000]

Missile engine technology would not be prudent for manned spacecraft as the missile engine is designed to be used precisely once.   There are a number of things one can afford to have an engine do if you never intend to have that engine be used again.

Yes, my point was that fighter engines could get for example 150% instead of the 200% of missiles to reflect the difference to a standard ship engine. Then follow this with the idea that the fighters 25 ton engine is substantially more efficient than a missile's 2 ton engine and you should get to a point where fighters are a worthwhile launch platform alternative.

 

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

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?

You can have fighter engines in Newtonian Aurora. If you read the engine post at the start of this thread, there is an option to increase thrust at the expense of fuel efficiency and you can also create 50 ton engines, which is the same size as a fighter engine in Standard Aurora. Instead of Commercial/Military/FAC/Fighter engines there is now a more detailed engine design process which allows you to create all four and everything in between.

'Beam' fighters may be possible in Newtonian Aurora because the smallest railgun is only 25 tons (0.5 HS). While it isn't very powerful, you could get the fighter up to a decent speed before firing and the projectile will gain the launch speed of the fighter. Of course, that fighter may struggle to change direction or decelerate before it reaches the target, especially as it will have to get fairly close for a good chance of a hit. The other option may be simple 'iron bombs'. Just a pair of 1000 kg chunks of iron under the wings. Get in close and let them go at a few hundred km/s. They would be devastating. A 1 kg railgun projectile is bad enough.

Steve

[UnLimiTeD]

Certainly.
I suppose the discussion is mainly why not to use guided missiles instead to pick up velocity and crash those into the target.
Now I suppose having a sphere 3 meters in diameter with strong thrusters buzzing around your ship, unmanned of course, and shooting a small laser, railgun slug, or Microwave your direction, will most certainly provive a distraction, if not as good of one as a volley of nukes, which might be cheaper.

The one thing that I fear might break the system (not just fighters, the newtonian system)from being fun is excessive speed making kinetic projectiles a bit too effective.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Certainly.
I suppose the discussion is mainly why not to use guided missiles instead to pick up velocity and crash those into the target.
Now I suppose having a sphere 3 meters in diameter with strong thrusters buzzing around your ship, unmanned of course, and shooting a small laser, railgun slug, or Microwave your direction, will most certainly provive a distraction, if not as good of one as a volley of nukes, which might be cheaper.

The one thing that I fear might break the system (not just fighters, the newtonian system)from being fun is excessive speed making kinetic projectiles a bit too effective.

Kinetic projectiles will be extremely effective, as will nuclear weapons . I forsee a return of the Nuclear Space Mine used by the Original Series Romulans against the Enterprise and the Agamemnon against the Minbari

I think I may have to revisit sensor technology to make it easier to detect small objects. However, it will be difficult to get hits with kinetic projectiles unless you are at close range, or the target is following a predictable course.

With regard to fighters vs missiles. A fighter can be far more selective about changing targets and is more able to adapt to a rapidly changing tactical situation.

Steve

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I think I am going to make shields just slightly larger than the ship rather than 25% larger. It is adding too many unnecessary complications that the damage that can hit the shields may not hit the ship, or worse still that only part of the damage that hits the shields may hit the ship. Much easier to have the same damage applied against both.

Steve

[bean]

Wait.  Are kinetics (coilguns, railguns, etc.) going to be unguided, or just have minimal tracking capability?

[Elouda]

Wait.  Are kinetics (coilguns, railguns, etc.) going to be unguided, or just have minimal tracking capability?

How could they track? Without an engine they have no means of altering course, unlike in the atmosphere. If they have an engine, they're no longer kinetics, but a missile.

[bean]

It's called thrusters.  My definition is based upon the primary means of giving them velocity, not on being unguided.
Unguided kinetics are very impractical.  See http://www.rocketpunk-manifesto.com/2010/11/home-away-from-home.html?showComment=1289267698643#c759139992445967698 for more details.