[NGTM-1R]

There is no stealth in space. Apparently not even with today's technology. Sorry guys. Might be possible with some SF gadgetry.

His numbers are bad, particularly about exposure times (try telling that bit about 30-second exposure for a magnitude 12 object to an astroimager and they'll laugh like hell), and again he's just basically talking out his ass about detection equals assessed as target.

[General Battuta]

There is no stealth in space. Apparently not even with today's technology. Sorry guys. Might be possible with some SF gadgetry.

His numbers are bad, particularly about exposure times (try telling that bit about 30-second exposure for a magnitude 12 object to an astroimager and they'll laugh like hell), and again he's just basically talking out his ass about detection equals assessed as target.

'He' isn't saying anything. His sources are all cited and he provides contact information if you'd like to dispute it. I'm certainly willing to believe there are problems with the analysis but I must say that the point seems well-substantiated.

[louiswuenator]

Combat wasps.

[NGTM-1R]

His sources are all cited and he provides contact information if you'd like to dispute it.

His sources are not cited, because they are not sources in any meaningful sense of the word, they are people talking who may or may not know what they are talking about. You are ascribing a validity to the "source" that it does not have.

[General Battuta]

His sources are all cited and he provides contact information if you'd like to dispute it.

His sources are not cited, because they are not sources in any meaningful sense of the word, they are people talking who may or may not know what they are talking about. You are ascribing a validity to the "source" that it does not have.

I'm quite aware it's not up to academic standards, but nonetheless, I am for the moment accepting the gist of the argument even if I did look askance at some details.

And his sources are certainly cited; while their validity is questionable, he at least provides us a way for us to access that questionability.

[TrashMan]

Herra brings up issues they don't even address and you just assume they forgot them because they're awesome? wtf kind of logic is that?

Herra might be a physicists, but what is his field of specialization?

I won't trust a proktologists with a brain surgery, or vice-versa. Suffice to say, projectrho is a site dedicated to just one thing - future in space. They get questions and e-mails, and I'm pretty sure all the relevant questions have already been raised over the years. Could they be wrong? Yes. Could Herra be wrong? Yes.

[Herra Tohtori]

So far this has been very basic applications of mathemathics and a bit of thermodynamics thrown in for good measure.

Any physicist regardless of their specialization fields should be able to do this stuff. It's like saying you would need to study medieval literature in order to be able to tell your kid a bedtime story.

It might help but it's not required for reading Snow White aloud.


And like I've already stated, all this really depends on what kind of detection and identification systems are available. Which we can't know, but we can know what kind of abilities they should have to detect and identify a target as a space ship. And it is not as easy as some in this thread seem to suggest, if the ship in question is not broadcasting a transponder signal or radiating like hell.

[Kolgena]

Also, EMP weapons would probably be used much more frequently and to greater effect against drones than against humans, so maybe that serves as a pseudoscience reason for why FS bothers to use manned fighters at all. Plus, if you broadcast a giant wall of EM noise, you'd cut off any communication between mothership operators and drones, unless they were using some sort of entanglement comms.

This.

Makes.

No.

Sense.

How is an electronically controlled fighter without a human pilot any different from one with electronic controls and a human pilot?

Unless you're suggesting future spacecraft won't be entirely fly-by-wire.

Sure it does.

A) Okay, so assuming that EM works on anything in the future is a bit stupid, but having a pilot that isn't affected might serve some advantages over a computer that could get scrambled and such. Besides, notice in dogfighting that your sensors get scrambled and that you can't target. To a computer, that equates to blindness and loss of control. To a human, that equates to annoying loss of aspect lock, but basically full functionality with primaries.

B) This point still makes sense. Fly by wire fails hard if you cut the wire by broadcasting noise to cover any signals that would be going to or from the drone. That's how communication jamming works today.

[Flipside]

The only real advantage, stealthwise, of unmanned ships is the fact that you save on having to heat some kind of living area and having to supply breathing and other needs.

  Smaller, faster and more maneuverable ships are harder to hit in a dogfight, where stealth isn't really a factor.  Human controlled drones with AI aided evasion and threat detection would present more of a challenge to computer controlled point defense.  Sensory interfaces could allow for extra sensors (including point defense targeting data and shipboard target identification systems) to be routed to the human pilots, thus giving them the equivalent of extra sensory perception, which would be far superior to an unquantifiable sense of "intuition"

  Also, EMP would present a host of problems for not only your ship-to-ship comms, but your enemies' as well.  Hardened onboard AI could keep the drones intact long enough for the pilot interfaces to be re-established.  The change in the flight characteristics may even confuse the enemy fighters, thus giving the tactical advantage back to our side.

I agree, which is why I said the main advantage stealthwise

[General Battuta]

Also, EMP weapons would probably be used much more frequently and to greater effect against drones than against humans, so maybe that serves as a pseudoscience reason for why FS bothers to use manned fighters at all. Plus, if you broadcast a giant wall of EM noise, you'd cut off any communication between mothership operators and drones, unless they were using some sort of entanglement comms.

This.

Makes.

No.

Sense.

How is an electronically controlled fighter without a human pilot any different from one with electronic controls and a human pilot?

Unless you're suggesting future spacecraft won't be entirely fly-by-wire.

Sure it does.

A) Okay, so assuming that EM works on anything in the future is a bit stupid, but having a pilot that isn't affected might serve some advantages over a computer that could get scrambled and such. Besides, notice in dogfighting that your sensors get scrambled and that you can't target. To a computer, that equates to blindness and loss of control. To a human, that equates to annoying loss of aspect lock, but basically full functionality with primaries.

B) This point still makes sense. Fly by wire fails hard if you cut the wire by broadcasting noise to cover any signals that would be going to or from the drone. That's how communication jamming works today.

Look up fly-by-wire before you respond to my point. You took it to mean remote piloting. It doesn't.

This is what you missed: the control paths the pilot uses to control the ship will be as electronic as the components of an AI brain. An EMP that can kill one will kill the other. Your living pilot will be locked in a dead ship; your dead AI brain will be locked in a dead ship; same end result.

The only alternative is a purely mechanical backup system but I really just can't see how that'd be practical given the number of electrical systems required for the most basic spacecraft function.

[Thaeris]

In real life, fighters like the F/A-18 have a hydraulic backup system. Something like the A-10 is even more redundant. A combat aircraft (or spacecraft for that matter) will not be sent into a high-threat environment without a means of operating in a state of impaired efficiency. And look at deep space in general... it's full of radiation and all sorts-O-nasty. You'd inherently be dealing with forces that would probably be worse than an EMP blast.

I'm not a believer in the "magical force field" as many shows/books/games present, but I do find that a field generator of some type would be needed to protect the crew of the ship from radiation/serious EMP interferance. This would also enable the mass of the ship to be kept much smaller.

[General Battuta]

In real life, fighters like the F/A-18 have a hydraulic backup system. Something like the A-10 is even more redundant. A combat aircraft (or spacecraft for that matter) will not be sent into a high-threat environment without a means of operating in a state of impaired efficiency. And look at deep space in general... it's full of radiation and all sorts-O-nasty. You'd inherently be dealing with forces that would probably be worse than an EMP blast.

I'm not a believer in the "magical force field" as many shows/books/games present, but I do find that a field generator of some type would be needed to protect the crew of the ship from radiation/serious EMP interferance. This would also enable the mass of the ship to be kept much smaller.

I cannot imagine any kind of purely mechanical (including hydraulic) backup system that is both practical and that would allow a combat spacecraft to continue functioning after all its electronics were burnt out. I could be wrong, though.

Modern EMP protection is quite sufficient. For radiation in space you need heavy-duty shielding, preferably water or somesuch (you can drink it too.) Force fields prolly wouldn't work since some particles are uncharged.

[Flipside]

Well, a thin layer of gold foil seems to do the job in most occasions, but that could get expensive if we rely on purely terrestrial supplies, after all, Voyager remained functional for years with practically no protection on its electronics at all.

[General Battuta]

Yeah, I just meant to protect the crew. Electronics ought to be fine. I should've clarified.

And it's worth remembering that explosions don't generate an EMP in space. You need a specialized EMP weapon.

[NGTM-1R]

Well, a thin layer of gold foil seems to do the job in most occasions, but that could get expensive if we rely on purely terrestrial supplies, after all, Voyager remained functional for years with practically no protection on its electronics at all.

Tinfoil is actually enough to stop dangerous EMP, they use gold to protect the crew against hard radiation.

[Colonol Dekker]

That's just lovely everyone needs protection sometimes.
 
Did they use that on the apollo missions?
 
I bet they were toastz in their pod

[Kolgena]

Also, EMP weapons would probably be used much more frequently and to greater effect against drones than against humans, so maybe that serves as a pseudoscience reason for why FS bothers to use manned fighters at all. Plus, if you broadcast a giant wall of EM noise, you'd cut off any communication between mothership operators and drones, unless they were using some sort of entanglement comms.

This.

Makes.

No.

Sense.

How is an electronically controlled fighter without a human pilot any different from one with electronic controls and a human pilot?

Unless you're suggesting future spacecraft won't be entirely fly-by-wire.

Sure it does.

A) Okay, so assuming that EM works on anything in the future is a bit stupid, but having a pilot that isn't affected might serve some advantages over a computer that could get scrambled and such. Besides, notice in dogfighting that your sensors get scrambled and that you can't target. To a computer, that equates to blindness and loss of control. To a human, that equates to annoying loss of aspect lock, but basically full functionality with primaries.

B) This point still makes sense. Fly by wire fails hard if you cut the wire by broadcasting noise to cover any signals that would be going to or from the drone. That's how communication jamming works today.

Look up fly-by-wire before you respond to my point. You took it to mean remote piloting. It doesn't.

This is what you missed: the control paths the pilot uses to control the ship will be as electronic as the components of an AI brain. An EMP that can kill one will kill the other. Your living pilot will be locked in a dead ship; your dead AI brain will be locked in a dead ship; same end result.

The only alternative is a purely mechanical backup system but I really just can't see how that'd be practical given the number of electrical systems required for the most basic spacecraft function.

Yeah, I totally had the definition of fly-by-wire gimped up in my head. I guess I must blame Perfect Dark for that.

As for EMP effects, we need to clarify whether our discussion is still rooted in the FS universe or not. In the FS universe, as far as I can tell, EMP effects don't "deaden" a ship. I have no clue why it doesn't, but that's the way the game suggests its ships work. Obviously, in a "real" universe with real physics, it'd be trivial to shield up self-sufficient AI in boxes so that EMP can't affect them. Of course, issues surrounding sensors and weapons would arise, but those could probably be dealt with in an age when combat spacecraft are being produced.

[Scotty]

Our discussion hasn't been rooted in FS since we started talking in AU-size distances.

[Wanderer]

Yeah, I just meant to protect the crew. Electronics ought to be fine. I should've clarified.

And it's worth remembering that explosions don't generate an EMP in space. You need a specialized EMP weapon.

Well... If the target ship is on (very, very) low orbit above planet with sizable atmosphere and magnetic field you could fire nukes to the planet atmosphere in hopes of generating EMP. Of course even without the EMP it might be better to shoot the nukes at the enemy ship.

[Thaeris]

The whole "field idea" is based on the concept of a man-made artificial magnetic field that would divert radiant energy from the ship. This would be similar to the Earth's own field, which protects us in a similar fashion. Because you don't have access to unobtanium, use of 10-ft thick lead-cored walls is not an option for a small, nimble space fighter. The pilot will have redundant protection, but long-term (used relatively-speaking) protection will require a better system, like a field.

Interestingly, some modern aircraft have "shields." The E-4B (a military 747 operated by the USAF) has a field generator which it would use to protect itself from EMP emissions during a nuclear strike scenario, in which it would be flying as an airborne command post.