Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
the only 'cool' battles I can even think of are from BSG.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
the only 'cool' battles I can even think of are from BSG.

---

That would be from the new series, I'm assumin'?


The zero-G Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
We got the original BSG, the new BSG, Babylon 5, Space: Above & Beyond, Deep Space 9, etc...

Which one(s) rock your home theatre???


The spaced Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Also, from TOS , The Ultimate Computer, which kinda has been done a few times over, was pretty cool. The idea of those majestic Constellation class star ships, going at it, against each other... was intriguing, to say the least.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lwaves:

You mentioned what would have to be my fave with the new BSG. The fast pace, gunfire all over, missiles streaming in by the dozen. It could sometimes be hard to tell what was going on but it looked really cool and put you right in the thick of things.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GWEK:
I would also add both Stargate series, which I would actually put at the top of the heap.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BlueEyedBrigadier:
People, people, people...how can we be dismissing the epic awesomeness of a single lone GunStar against a whole wing of Ko-Dan Armada reverse Y-wing fighters from The Last Starfighter?!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GWEK:
I would also add both Stargate series, which I would actually put at the top of the heap.

---

Stargate: Atlantis?
I really liked it...


The laughing Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

AURaptor wrote:
Friday, October 22, 2010 15:46

*I really DO love the lines on the Viper, but I always wondered...why the intakes for the engines that fly in a vacuum ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
*I really DO love the lines on the Viper, but I always wondered...why the intakes for the engines that fly in a vacuum ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
We got the original BSG, the new BSG, Babylon 5, Space: Above & Beyond, Deep Space 9, etc...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ImNotHere:
I'm gonna have to go with Babylon 5 here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Which brings me to the question of which design is better: this

or this

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cybersnark:
One of the scripts/properties I'm intending to sell someday is called Starfighter Academy, so I've put a lot of thought into how space combat would really develop (both to make it distinctive, and to justify using manned fighters when they would, logically, make absolutely no sense --as Imnothere notes, most space battles on TV are WWII aerial combat in space [Lucas deliberately copied WWII footage in Star Wars, and then everybody else just copies Lucas]).

---

Quote:

---

Why Starfighters?

On the surface, starfighters don't seem to make sense. They rarely do anything that a missile or drone can't accomplish, they tend to be equipped with weapons that are far less capable than those of capital ships, and a squadron of fighters is little different resource-wise than a single small cruiser. Since there is no real "stealth" in space, and many weapons have potentially unlimited range, it seems that space combat should rely exclusively on missiles and countermeasures.

The modern starfighter is the product of a long line of technological evolution.

Early Era:

For most species, the earliest form of space combat used projectiles --either "shells" (which received a burst of acceleration from their launcher) or "missiles" (which would continue accelerating until they either struck a target or ran out of fuel). Missiles tend to be larger and more destructive (through sheer kinetic impact if nothing else), and can usually reach the target faster than gunfire. Inert shells, on the other hand, are often harder for sensors to detect --they're small enough that most sensors were designed to ignore them (otherwise you'd ping every bit of space debris and dust in the solar system), and the temperature variation between them and the space around them can be negligible. Being projectiles, both missiles and shells can travel indefinitely --when a missile's fuel is used up, it stops accelerating, but continues at its final speed.

This makes these weapons hazardous not just to enemies during battle, but to civillian or allied craft, even over vast gaps of time and space. A handful of shells can get caught in a gravity well, becoming fast-moving, potentially explosive space debris that could turn up just about anywhere in a solar system and shred an unshielded craft to ribbons.

[Laser weapons are highly effective due to their destructive potential, and their inability to be blocked by conventional countermeasures, but have a wide range of weaknesses making them useless for large-scale combat. Compared to missiles and conventional guns, lasers require an absurd amount of energy to reach useful power levels. Lasers also generate a great deal of waste heat --in an atmosphere, this can be cooled via convection (blown air absorbs the heat and carries it away), but in the vacuum of space, this heat will need to be radiated slowly. Laser weapons also need very precise targeting and a sustained target lock, making them ineffective against small, evasive targets. Finally, a laser beam can be diffused by any debris or flack between the emitter and the target.]

Because early vessels were usually limited to light-speed sensors (visual light, lidar, radar), most engagements were fought within ranges of one light-second. This was both because objects beyond that range could not be accurately targeted (by the time you see the target, it has already moved), and because even missiles rarely reached relativistic speeds.

Typically, missiles were used for long-range assault/interception, with shipboard guns functioning as close-range point-defense (shooting down incoming missiles). Specialized missiles were used as countermeasure interceptors, detonating incoming warheads either through collision, fratricide explosions, or by generating EM pulses that destroyed a missile's targeting ability (leaving it easy prey for point-defense guns).

Space combat with missiles has been described as "a delicate dance of range" --if you were too far away from your target, they would have plenty of time to intercept your missiles. If you were too close, you wouldn't be able to intercept theirs. One strategy that developed from this is point-blank or "hull-to-hull" combat. Draw extremely close to a target and use the point-defense turrets to generate a flack-storm. Any missiles your enemy tries to fire will be destroyed shortly after clearing the tubes --possibly damaging the enemy ship itself as they detonate. At close enough ranges, the point-defense guns can themselves reach the enemy ship, blasting through hull as easily as they cut through missiles.

The Rise of Drones:

Missile-based combat inevitably became a race between more agile missiles (to avoid the countermeasures) and more agile countermeasures (to intercept the more agile missiles). The continuous-thrust engines that made missiles so destructive ended up impairing their manoeuvrability --the more a missile accelerated toward its target, the harder it became to change course.

Multiple-stage missiles were designed to break apart when countered --one missile turning into six or more, with one being "sacrificed" to the countermeasures. Countermeasures adapted to this as well, switching to electronic means and developing tighter-turning "pursuers" that could chase down any missile that escaped the initial contact.

Simple computer programs (barely worthy of being called AI) were written, allowing missiles to vary their thrust and perform sharper evasive manoeuvres --this necessitated more advanced sensors and computers built into the missiles themselves. Interceptors became ever more manoeuvrable, developing inertial-drive "sit-and-spin" tactics.

The first plasma cannons were developed to serve as point defense weapons in populated systems. The bolts (magnetized bottles of charged plasma) dissipate rather than leaving stray shells to endanger traffic. They also offer effectively unlimited ammunition, when drawing energy from a generator. The development of energy shields (capable of absorbing and dissipating plasma charges) was an inevitable outgrowth.

Smaller plasma cannon (powered from a smaller power cell rather than a full generator) were eventually mounted on missiles to increase both survival rates and effectiveness (interceptor countermeasures could bring down more missiles, while missiles could destroy interceptors from a distance).

The Age of Starfighters:

The development of these heavily-armed and versatile "missiles" signalled the birth of the modern combat drone.

As drone missiles became more complex (and thus expensive), the explosive warhead became reduced and marginalized. Finally, simpler continuous-burn missiles experienced a resurgence --fired from the drones themselves, which could then be recovered (to save money).

By now, electronic countermeasure (ECM) technology had developed to the point where the drones' targeting systems could be reliably scrambled (jamming had long-since rendered remote control useless). Hardening drone computers against ECM gained only diminishing returns, and proved useless against direct attack by plasma-based ionization weapons (which simply delivered too much ionization for most shielding to tolerate). Drone programming was reaching the Turkhov limit --it could progress no further without actual, thinking, AI.

The obvious solution, given the lack of reliable, cost-effective AI, was to employ living pilots. While a fighter's sensors can sometimes be foiled by ECM, a pilot's eyes cannot, and no jamming field can affect a pilot's innate reflexes and judgement. More, pilots are capable of learning from their experiences, improving their skills over the course of multiple sorties.

There's also the pilot's innate "BSI quotient." A reflection of individual unpredictability (the human-coined acronym stands for "Bat-S#*% Insane"), the higher the BSI, the harder it is for a thinking system to anticipate the pilot's movements. Drones only have a BSI of 0 or 1. Normal sapients average around 2 or 3. Fighter pilots start out around 5. The best pilots are around 7 or 8 --if you're hearing this, congratulations, you're one of us. To learn more about people with a BSI rating of 10, check a history book. Their names tend to be the chapter headings.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cljohnston108:
Oh, definitely!

My favorite being...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ImNotHere:
But it also illustrates my point about the danger of falling girders in space combat

---

Quote:

---

“Under this burden some men became like brutes, and the minds of others grew as terrible and implacable as the machines they fought against. But I have touched a few rare human minds, the jewels of life, who rise to meet the greatest challenges by becoming supremely men.”
-Third Historian

---