Quote

Invoking Tachyonic or Warp-Drive technology opens a very different ballgame. Technically we have to invoke some form of FTL in order to make galactic travel possible, but in turn this means that space combat becomes reduced to simply warping a nuke into the enemy ships bridge and watching them blow up from the inside out, with no way to stop it. So it kinda strips all the fun and romance out of space combat.

This, of course, assumes that your fictional FTL technology is accurate enough to bring an object out of hyperspace/subspace/whatever with such precision as to land it within maybe a 200 meter radius.

Of course, we as writers often choose our FTL physics in such a way that space battles are of maximum coolness. Hence ships must run away from gravity wells (and hostile pursuers!) in order to warp, planet-destroying asteroids must re-enter realspace giving the defenders a chance to intercept and destroy, and journeys across entire galaxies take weeks at most in a ship the size of a sailboat.

Regarding the tachyonic semi-teleportation, I think the greater problem would be that the first military to apply it would likely instantly annihilate every other government in existence given the risk it would pose if someone else were to develop the same technology. I mean, we're talking like instant, untraceable, and likely very accurate nuclear strikes against anywhere you want whenever you want.

This is getting really depressing.

Well, the other thing I just thought of about Tachyon-Based Weaponry...

Chances are, they'd require so much power that your "ship" would essentially be reduced to what could be best be described as a "brick." Meaning that the power demands would make it impossible to move the ship.

Therefore, Tachyonic Drives might be possible, but completely impractical as weapons. Something tells me that even fusion or antimatter reactors wouldn't be enough to power Tachyonic weapons on ships. Planets, maybe, but even then, it'd require stripping a vast amount of power from the planet's energy reserves.

@joshtigerheart, on Jul 6 2008, 06:49 PM, said in On Relative Sizes of Spacecraft:

Or maybe because it'd just be too dang complicated, space combat won't ever exist.

Not to steal it, but the more we argue this...the more I am coming to this conclusion...

However, it is impossible to predict what future advancements may allow/not allow space combat. Perhaps, we haven't even begun to scratch the surface of some odd/beneficial physical phenomena that exist outside our current solar system or even galaxy (and more importantly exist outside out current mental schema, therefore disallowing us the benefit of the knowledge of their existence in such discussions).

@skyfox, on Jul 8 2008, 05:54 AM, said in On Relative Sizes of Spacecraft:

I wonder if atmospheric combat would ever be needed or worthwhile, when a ship parked in orbit can turn the whole planet into a nuclear wasteland or selectively eliminate the planet's air/sea/ground defenses with Point Defense. But its nova, lalalala.

Well, at least some of the time you're going to want to invade a planet and leave its resources unharmed so you can exploit them yourself. You also have to consider that planet-side weaponry have considerably more space to be built on. That ship might be able to fire a few nukes at a world, but that world very likely could shoot an exponentially greater number of nukes back, give or take vast quantities based on how developed the planet is.

@joshtigerheart, on Jul 8 2008, 09:13 PM, said in On Relative Sizes of Spacecraft:

Well, at least some of the time you're going to want to invade a planet and leave its resources unharmed so you can exploit them yourself. You also have to consider that planet-side weaponry have considerably more space to be built on. That ship might be able to fire a few nukes at a world, but that world very likely could shoot an exponentially greater number of nukes back, give or take vast quantities based on how developed the planet is.

AKA shoot first.

But seriously (more or less) if you bring that type of thinking into the picture, you could basically explode every planet with human life on it leaving your race as the last one. Then just feather out through the galaxy (you can jump across it in 10 days right :nova style anyway: ) and find millions of other inhabited worlds.

Less competition, plenty of supply.

This post has been edited by Swithich : 09 July 2008 - 02:38 AM

Resources aren't always raw. Sometimes things such as one of your foes primary shipyards or manufacturing worlds are excellent prizes. Why destroy something you can use yourself?

@joshtigerheart, on Jul 9 2008, 05:18 PM, said in On Relative Sizes of Spacecraft:

Resources aren't always raw. Sometimes things such as one of your foes primary shipyards or manufacturing worlds are excellent prizes. Why destroy something you can use yourself?

Especially since there's always the nuclear option if the atmospheric battle doesn't go your way.

If you want to take enemy assets intact, it'd make more sense to develop a neutron weapon of some sort.

@mackilroy, on Jul 9 2008, 10:39 AM, said in On Relative Sizes of Spacecraft:

If you want to enemy assets intact, it'd make more sense to develop a neutron weapon of some sort.

Alternately, there's the far-more abhorred but just as effective method of Viral or Nerve Agent Bombardment.

I'm thinking that none of those options are going to take out hardened military targets, and just result in teh mass slaughter of civilians. And if it's that easy to do, there's going to be retribution, and pretty soon you're going to be out of habitable planets, or civilian populations at least.

True, but (this isn't rhetorical, I'm actually curious) how long does the rather nasty byproducts of those weapons to dissipate?

@keldor-sarn, on Jul 9 2008, 01:06 PM, said in On Relative Sizes of Spacecraft:

I'm thinking that none of those options are going to take out hardened military targets, and just result in teh mass slaughter of civilians. And if it's that easy to do, there's going to be retribution, and pretty soon you're going to be out of habitable planets, or civilian populations at least.

Then you hit the military targets with kinetic weaponry and find some way to either occupy the planet (expensive and potentially disastrous) or you eliminate the civilians and move in your own colonists.

Bear in mind, in reality, countries don't fight wars by utterly destroying everything the enemy has. Well, usually. Instead they have some other goal, such as acquire more wealth and territory, kill the infidels, assert their power, encourage someone to back off of their monopolies on certain commodities, etc. I strongly doubt that, just because you have spaceships and multiple planets under your belt, you're suddenly only going to be interested in utterly destroying your foe.

@joshtigerheart, on Jul 9 2008, 01:38 PM, said in On Relative Sizes of Spacecraft:

Bear in mind, in reality, countries don't fight wars by utterly destroying everything the enemy has. Well, usually. Instead they have some other goal, such as acquire more wealth and territory, kill the infidels, assert their power, encourage someone to back off of their monopolies on certain commodities, etc. I strongly doubt that, just because you have spaceships and multiple planets under your belt, you're suddenly only going to be interested in utterly destroying your foe.

A couple of things:

First, the stakes are a lot higher, if you toy around, someone else is going to bring a planet destroying weapon and wipe you out.

Second, terrorists, 23rd or so century. You assume governments, but that isn't always the case, cults and ideologies can be very dangerous with such weapons.

I already noted that is probably more likely that simply groups would just live in somewhat of a stalemate. Just like the nuclear powers of today that in theory, could destroy the whole world at a moments notice. But there is no way of knowing. I think it would be more likely that there would not be warfare, instead just inter planet conflicts about who will inhabit a planet or system. It is hard to make this call, but I'd say that man is going to have to develop more suitable methods of conflict resolution to survive his own advancements in technology.

Wow I just came up with another book idea. Weird.

This post has been edited by Swithich : 09 July 2008 - 03:51 PM

@guest_swithich_-, on Jul 9 2008, 03:50 PM, said in On Relative Sizes of Spacecraft:

First, the stakes are a lot higher, if you toy around, someone else is going to bring a planet destroying weapon and wipe you out.

You are aware of just how ludicriously difficult it is to destroy a planet, right?

It's technically feasible to remove the crust of the planet with the current megatonnage possessed by both the United States and the Russian Federation. That would, in effect, destroy the planet.

That would only destroy the planets ability to sustain life.

The planet itself is going to sit there and laugh at you.

That site is priceless. The last one especially made me bust a gut. :laugh:

Yes, Eugene, but we're not going to be around to belabor the point should someone decide to remove the crust of the planet.