|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 304 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 225 of 304:
| 
May 29 00:15 UTC 2002 |
Sounds like aficienados have tried to analyze this kind of fiction
even more than I do.
|
aruba
|
|
response 226 of 304:
|
May 29 00:40 UTC 2002 |
I think a lot of people who really care about accuracy and consistency have
given up on science fiction, sadly, and most of the rest have been co-opted
into thinking it's just not worth fighting about. I see drew as a leading
light among the small remainder, who are fans that also want accuracy.
I'd love to see some of Arthur Clarke's stories made into movies; the
touble is that most of them are too boring. But wouldn't it be great to
have a hero in a movie who was an engineer, who solved problems without
resorting to technobabble? Clarke manages to pull that off in his books,
like The Fountains of Paradise and A Fall of Moondust.
I hope Hollywood filmmakers remember what a great movie Apollo 13 was and
learn the right lesson: that people finding solutions to problems within
the framework of the laws of *this* universe can be very exciting.
|
mdw
|
|
response 227 of 304:
|
May 29 00:54 UTC 2002 |
The problem is you have a 3-way problem: accuracy, a good story, *and*
make money. The people who back hollywood movies are mainly interested
in the latter. So they're looking to make a quick buck; ideally by
copying someone else's idea because that's less risky. Sometimes,
people in hollywood get interested in telling a good story. A few of
them even have the ability to recognize a good story, although this
talent is rare. This talent is appreciated once it proves to pan out
(ie, by making lots of money), although there are enough accidental
successes that this is regarded as risky. I don't think there are
enough scientists or mathematicians in hollywood to make this likely.
MacGyver is the best example I can think of, and even that has its
problems.
|
remmers
|
|
response 228 of 304:
|
May 29 01:50 UTC 2002 |
Episode 2 had the noisiest space battles I've even heard. I didn't
think sound carried in a vacuum. Nor that fire was possible.
|
russ
|
|
response 229 of 304:
|
May 29 13:16 UTC 2002 |
Re #226: I gave up on *movies* for accuracy long ago, because
directors don't give a damn about it (because their audiences
don't, unless they are Kubrick fans). The printed word is a
different matter.
|
janc
|
|
response 230 of 304:
|
May 29 17:37 UTC 2002 |
Right, there is still quite a bit of written science fiction that tries
hard for accuracy. There is a sub-genre of science fiction, hard
science fiction, that is packed to the gill with science.
In fact, nearly all authors seem to make some kind of nod at logical
consistancy of the technology, if not necessarily scientific
plausibility. Even Star Wars books tend to be full of the author
trying to fit all the stuff that happened in the movies into some kind
of consistant framework.
Most movies are really adventure/fantasy with space ships. Some does
better though. "AI" had some pretty plausible robots - their abilities
and limitations made sense.
|
drew
|
|
response 231 of 304:
|
May 29 20:29 UTC 2002 |
Actually, "right side up" is a bit less bothersome than rocket/jet-like
engines pointed away from the destination (for thrust toward the
destination, ALL THE TIME including entering orbit, about to land, etc.
Turnaround should be a bit further out, most likely at the midpoint.
Though it would still have been nice for there have been (in most cases)
no such thing as "right side up", or for "up" to be towards an axis
of rotation, and|or toward a direction of acceleration.
Here is a wild idea. It's a long shot, but what I saw leads me to think
it might have a chance: I want the team that worked on _Lord of the Rings_
to make _Deepness in the Sky_.
|
jazz
|
|
response 232 of 304:
|
May 29 23:38 UTC 2002 |
There's at least one good justification for being "right side up" -
assuming reasonable fields of fire for both the "top" and "bottom" of
spacecraft, it wouldn't matter which way a ship was oriented, and smaller and
less rational tie-breakers might be used, such as a beauraucrat's preference
for an orderly-looking fleet, or the pilots' preference for two-dimensional
land-based thinking.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 233 of 304:
|
May 30 00:57 UTC 2002 |
That doesn't seem to be the way things are heading (so to speak...). Even
the first international space station isn't "right side up", nor does
it have a top or bottom. The shuttle does, of course, as it lands like
an airplane. A pilot, of course, must be oriented (we are built that
way), although that might be a serious drawback in zero-gravity dogfights,
where there are no aerodynamic restrictions on maneuvering. In fact, I'm
not sure what an optimum fighter configuration would be.
|
other
|
|
response 234 of 304:
|
May 30 04:34 UTC 2002 |
maximum armament per unit of area visible from any one direction
|
bdh3
|
|
response 235 of 304:
|
May 30 06:50 UTC 2002 |
re#234: That would be a nice big fat target.
|
gull
|
|
response 236 of 304:
|
May 30 12:35 UTC 2002 |
I don't think you'd use fighters in space combat. Remotely-guided kinetic
energy type weapons would probably be more effective. (i.e., get a chunk of
metal moving towards the target as fast as possible.) Without a human
occupant to worry about a remotely-guided weapon should be able to pull
higher G forces than any manned craft -- which means it'd be able to
out-maneuver anything with a human on board.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 237 of 304:
|
May 31 01:02 UTC 2002 |
goddamn.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 238 of 304:
|
May 31 02:41 UTC 2002 |
That makes sense, but from what platform was the RGKETWs be targetted?
That requires a person within (at least sensor) range, in fast,
maneuverable, space vehicle: i.e., a fighter. The RGKETWs would be their
weapon.
|
aruba
|
|
response 239 of 304:
|
May 31 03:02 UTC 2002 |
The human (or computer?) operator could be on a large ship nearby.
|
gull
|
|
response 240 of 304:
|
May 31 03:23 UTC 2002 |
Yeah, since there's no way you could out-maneuver a RGKETW, even in a
fighter, it seems to me you'd want the person guiding it to be in a
large, heavily-armored ship. Think naval combat, before aircraft
carriers, and you get the idea. Actually, it'd probably be a computer
actually guiding it, with a human simply choosing the targets.
|
bru
|
|
response 241 of 304:
|
May 31 03:40 UTC 2002 |
I disagree gull. It should be easy to avoid almost any weapon if you are at
least a half light second away, closer if the weapon is not a light speed
weapon. By the time you get the taaarget locked and your weapon away, he
could be several hundred miles from the aim point. You can manuever along
the x.y. and z axis all at the same time before the weapon reaches the target.
Perfect design for space combat, a sphere. It offers the most compact design
and the most angle on the armor from any direction. You cannot tell which way
it is facing, and weapons can be mounted in any direction.
Spce combat is going to be close quarters or not at all.
relatively speaking, anyway.
|
gull
|
|
response 242 of 304:
|
May 31 03:58 UTC 2002 |
If the weapon is maneuverable, it doesn't matter if you change
position. It can always maneuver harder than you are to stay on
target, because a human can only take a certain amount of force, and an
unmanned weapon isn't limited that way.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 243 of 304:
|
May 31 05:26 UTC 2002 |
Are you imagining such fighting at distances greater than even 0.01 light
second? How does the controller see/identify a target?
|
bdh3
|
|
response 244 of 304:
|
May 31 05:39 UTC 2002 |
Hmm. Big fat round target with large detectable cross-section...
Lets consider potential weapons for warfare in space.
Kinetic kill rail gun, laser, particle beam, and variations
all require a long narrow precisely aligned structures that
may even be less tolerant of G forces than humans but have
the advantage of mostly needing to be 'dangerous end' pointing
generally toward the target thus small cross-section for target's
detection and countermeasures.
Self contained rocket. Round shape containing fuel -vs-
long stick containing fuel presenting less target cross-section
for counter again. (Problem with rocket is why accelerate
weight of all fuel? More better to accelerate kill vehicle
with maybe a little fuel for terminal maneuvering.)
No, I don't get sphere as ideal shape for space warfare.
|
gull
|
|
response 245 of 304:
|
May 31 14:35 UTC 2002 |
A sphere is a good shape for a crew compartment, though. Easy to seal. The
Soviet space capsules have all been based on basically spherical pressure
hulls and they leaked much, much less than the Apollo capsules. (The amount
of leakage from the Apollo capsules -- a pound or two of air a day -- drove
the Soviets nuts on joint missions.)
|
i
|
|
response 246 of 304:
|
Jun 1 02:25 UTC 2002 |
If enclosed volume is a virtue (room for more engines, weapons, crew, etc.)
and outside surface area a vice (must protected with armor, "force shields",
etc.), then a sphere is the best shape for a general space-going warship.
For warships or missiles that will have the luxury of picking one narrow
direction to have their enemy in, a long & pointy shape would be better.
That luxury will be very hard to come by, however, if the folks in the
spheres didn't flunk out of Space Tactics 101.
With computer-guided point defences, Star Wars-style fighters that get
close to their targets wouldn't last as long as the Polish cavalry did
against the German tanks & machine guns in WWII.
On the flip side - big, expensive warships aren't viable in battle unless
defensive technology can protect them very well indeed from all the laser,
nuclear, antimatter, & kinetic beams/mines/missiles/shells/etc. that will
be aimed at them. The Death Stars totally flunked this test, but made
great dramatic climax targets for space fantasy special effects explosions.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 247 of 304:
|
Jun 1 05:56 UTC 2002 |
I think you are a tad 'gravicentric' in dismissing the 'pointy'
weapon platform. Lets say my stick is heading in a particular
vector that is not towards you the big fat round target.
I still have a smaller 'cross-section' although perhaps wider
in one dimension. It doesn't take much effort for me to change
the orientation of my sharp end to point in your direction while
still traveling on the original vector. Now my cross-section is
even smaller and I am pointing the dangerous end at you the nice
big fat round target.
|
i
|
|
response 248 of 304:
|
Jun 1 23:46 UTC 2002 |
No, i'm assuming a super-secret strategy that virtually every navy on the
Earth has used for thousands of years. Instead of blowing the entire
budget on one single super-ship that can only be in one place at a time,
might get destroyed by misfortune or enemy cleverness (leaving one with
no navy at all), etc., i'm assuming that the smart navy with the spheres
has a decent-sized fleet of spheres. A fleet that's (ancient super-
secret tactics now) spread out in 3 dimension...far enough apart to be a
very poor group target, but close enough for great mutual defense. Your
pointy ship/missile/whatever may point at one sphere, but it's got its
very vulnerable sides exposed to the massed weapons of a bunch of the
other spheres.
|
bru
|
|
response 249 of 304:
|
Jun 2 02:06 UTC 2002 |
The only drawback I see to the sphere is if you need to enter atmosphere.
Here you might want a swept wing vehicle to act in atmosphere, or at least
some kind of lifting body. If your ships have gravity control then maybe a
saucer shape would be a good middle ground.
Trying to imagine what the natives of some foreign planet would think of
beings invading their planet in flying saucers. :-)
|