Can we all agree that military starships will likely look like

File: 1412981279056.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>23308370
>Can we all agree
You know good and goddamn well that we can't agree about anything here.

>>23308370
>/k/ agreeing on anything
I think we can only agree that weapons are fucking cool.

File: Battleship.png (92KB, 2880x1000px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 2880x1000px

Probably. Keep in mind they used these ships for orbital bombardment as well.The missile is practically obsolete since they can easily be shot down. You can't shoot down a a 30' 600 ton depleted uranium slug fired at 12,000 kilometers per second.

>>23308370

No. Military spaceships will look exactly like subs with orbital rings for motion.

Why would space ships designed for combat EVER look like a naval ship in an area that is more like the ocean? Space combat would be so fucking tense that I would never want man to witness it. Sub hunting with subs is bad enough but imagine being able to detect the heat from engines from literal planet distances away and launching weapons designed to cause explosive decompression.

>>23308447
The ships in Halo are fast enough to the point where they can get from Earth to Mars in just a few hours. This is without the slip space drive btw.


They also have an insane amount of armor. You get a decompression? Than you just seal off that area. You need to aim for as much damage as possible with one hit that can't be evaded. Coil guns/rail guns are the only way.

>>23308370
>building a ship around a cannon
No, we can't agree on that, because your ship will be build around the drive if it's made to go anywhere at all. Even if your gun dominates the rest of the design, it's still going to be a relatively small percentage.

And
>cannon
>implying kinetics
Not unless you're using a siege weapon for stationary targets.

>>23308499
stationary is a relative term here

>>23308370
Massive, planet-busting cannons are impractical in any real form of naval combat.
>charge the cannon!
20 mins later
>fire!
>sir we missed!

>>23308406
Wrong, guns are fucking awesome.

File: scheepsdeur-centraal_gesloten04.jpg (95KB, 510x768px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 510x768px

>>23308480
>You get a decompression? Than you just seal off that area.
we do that already

>>23308529
Yeah, but you get what I mean. I you have a slow moving or entrenched target down on the surface of a planet/moon/whathaveyou, or a space station with sluggish maneuvering, kinetics are fine, but you'd want missiles or lasers for anything capable of quick response.

>>23308480
so if ships in halo are fast, why do they rely on railguns? why wouldn't they utilize what makes their ships fast to make the missiles faster? why would they use something that once launched cannot gain positive control over its direction and speed?

>>23308472
I don't know what this is from so I could be missing something, but
>Ship meant to travel only in space
>Aerodynamic design
Always bugged the crap out of me
Also,
>Ship in movie flying through space
>Engines on the entire time
>When they want to slow down or stop, they simply shut the engines off

No, we cant fucking agree on that at all.

>>23308370
>not mass effect ships

>>23308571
>never any retrograde thrusters

I know your feels

File: Vaygr Ships.jpg (33KB, 620x523px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 620x523px

>>23308398
Time to prove this guy right.

>>23308370
Honestly. No. No they will not.
At least not any time soon.
Extrapolating off of current technology, the earliest 'military' star ships are going to be cramped, covered in missile bays, point defense guns, radar and as many heat sinks as we can fit on them.

It's going to be a amazingly long distance version of submarine warfare, where you find a target, acquire a firing solution, fire, hope to hell he hasn't spotted you and that you hit him first, because the moment a missile gets through, things are going poorly for whoever is hit.
Engagements will be dictated by those with the best sensor range, missile range, and ability to maneuver.

Before somebody says "But weapon range is INFINITE in space". Yes. So is, technically, ship range.
Technically, I could sit in Houston, do the math and fire off a package at Mars with reasonable accuracy, it's what we call the math behind the Rover missions anyhow.

Technically means a whole lot of shit that boils down to the fact that you still have to be reasonably expected to find and destroy your target, and in the fucking, amazing, goddamn huge, seriously I cannot impress this enough, large distances in space, even radar is going to take time to actually get back to you once you get far enough. For example. say you bounce a radar wave from the earth to the moon, it will take a second to get there, and a second to get back.
Anywhere from 4 minutes to 24 minutes for Mars.
So you still have to be close enough to your target, for your firing solution to not be an echo that's seconds to minutes out of date.

This is assuming we ever actually even bother to engage in space warfare beyond parking a mothership up above a planet with a payload of nuclear fuck you, which is a whole different game and ballpark.

That all said, Halo has some pretty nifty looking space ships.
Still prefer Homeworld 2's though.

>>23308529
So please tell me how your massive cannon is going to hit something that moves in 3 dimensions on a dime and doesnt need to turn to do so. The reason that cannons, and even lasers, are dumb is because in space, you are either fighting at stupidly close range or stupidly long range. Long range is literally a pot luck game like old naval battles where you are adding another axis of travel since now you have vertical to deal with as well and short range is literally a zero sum game of 'If I die, I'm going to set off every weapon I have as well so enjoy your raped anus'. Space combat would be horrible aside from the environment because it's effectively ocean combat without any of the terrain. Enjoy being paranoid as shit while stalking one another and praying someone runs over one of the 5000 drone/mine/missile pod combos you have about so that it can radiation burst the enemy to give you an idea where he is and to light him up while launching everything from nukes to penetrators in a hope to get a kill.

>>23308567
Halo ships heavily relied on missiles as well.

It is like you haven't read the books

>>23308586
>retrograde thrusters
It's space. You don't slap on extra thrusters, ya lazy git, you turn around.

No. They'll be what are essentially space stations with a main thruster taking up 70 percent of the space and a high energy chemical laser taking up another 20 percent.

>>23308408
>.The missile is practically obsolete since they can easily be shot down. You can't shoot down a a 30' 600 ton depleted uranium slug fired at 12,000 kilometers per second.

No, but you can easily move out of the way.

>>23308601
>You don't slap on extra thrusters
>You turn around
How do you turn around in space with thrusters in only one direction?

>>23308601
Something tells me it'd be easier to have separate thrusters for retrograde rather than turn a big-ass ship around to use the main ones.

>>23308567
>firing up the ship out to max speed of strategy position

If they don't ever enter atmospheres they will be elliptical in shape.

File: battlestar_galactica_wallpaper_1080p.jpg (426KB, 2880x1620px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 2880x1620px

I think we will be more likely to field space born carriers

>>23308601
Which takes unnecessary time and fuel. Lrn2space

>>23308620
No, thats mentally retarded

>>23308614
to decelerate as fast as you accelerate, you'd need engines of equal power on both sides
you'd just doubled your engine mass for no reason
big motor for pushing
tiny ones for direction change

>>23308596
I haven't actually but the poster stressing "da speed of da railguns is all dats important" is just so aggravating. the most sensible solution to space combat if needed is a combination of literally everything.
>>23308615
and that does what that missile technology couldn't eventually out-think or run?

>>23308609
You have maneuvering thrusters for that.
>but you said-
I know. But you don't use dinky maneuvering thrusters to actually decelerate your ship. That's what the main engines are for.

>>23308651
>doubled your engine mass for no reason
The reason is that the fuel required to turn around the entire ship every time to decelerate would easily be more efficiently replaced with engines which weigh slightly more but are much more compact.

File: revell_monogram_star_fury.jpg (39KB, 800x598px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 800x598px

>>23308587
As an aside, and perhaps one of my favorite little space fighters ever, behold the Starfury from Babylon 5.

Otherwise known as the closest to realistic space fighters a TV series has gotten in a long time. Exceptions for any that just used unmanned drones like any sane person fighting in space.

>>23308651
>to decelerate as fast as you accelerate
Why would you need to decelerate as fast as you accelerate?

>>23308627
>turning your fucking ship around
>unnecessary time and fuel
>accelerating the extra mass of an extra set of main engines
>not unnecessary time and fuel
Nah.

>>23308472
wouldn't they paint the ships black so they blend in with the background?

I know it's likely not going to have much of an effect because if you can see the other ship with the bare eye something as gone horribly wrong, but still

>>23308674
Speed is not a huge issue. Using smaller engines that allow you to save more time and fuel when decelerating are more important than accelerating quickly.

>>23308370
why does that look like a rifle ?

>>23308673
Because they are the exact same thing, nigger, it's space.

>>23308684

And you'd probably try to protect the cockpit a bit better than just some glass IN THE VERY FRONT OF THE FUCKING SHIP

>>23308608
It's pretty hard.

Especially when the person that is aiming the thing is a super fucking smart AI

>>23308673
as a warship you need to do everything as fast as possible

>>23308695
>implying smaller means more fuel efficient
>implying you don't mind spending longer to decelerate yet you have something spergy against taking the time to rotate your ship
Nigger, what.

>>23308703
It's a gigant gun with thrusters on it.
It's an A-10fag wet dream.

>>23308571
>>Ship meant to travel only in space
>reentry heat shielding
Looks like it wasn't meant to travel only in space

>>23308705
Are you pretty much saying that going faster and slowing down are different because you're in space?

>>23308730
Right, because Iowa class battleships were designed with speed in mind.

>>23308593
where th hell did all that come from?

>>23308673
Are you really asking this ?

>>23308571
pretty sure it's Iron Sky

>>23308533
Who is to say the cannon will take 20 minutes to load? This isn't the 1800s we are talking about.

>>23308703
Because it's built around a giant railgun

The area below everything else is the cargo bay and main egress/ingress point in atmosphere for troops and vehicles

>>23308768
Is it really that hard to grasp that you can determine how far in advance of your destination you need to start slowing down?

>>23308370
We can hope, but I doubt we'll agree

>>23308765
No, I'm saynig going faster and slowing down are the same. Because you're in space.
The only thing that allows you to say whether you're "accelerating" or "decelerating" is your point of reference. Physically you're doing the exact same fucking thing either way.

>>23308782
That was poorly worded.

You can determine the necessary time needed to slow down your ship with forward-facing retrograde thrusters, regardless of their power.

>>23308620
I always thought that was a pretty stupid idea. Any weapons they fielded would be easy to shoot down or just not big enough to cause a lot of damage.

>>23308798
>No, I'm saynig going faster and slowing down are the same. Because you're in space.
I'm really not sure if you're just fucking with me at this point. Please elaborate on "Going faster and slowing down are the same because you're in space". What is your reasoning?

>>23308814
It's a good idea for troop transport at least.

Have a carrier with a light escort behind the main group, have it shit out shuttles filled with troops on to disabled ships intended for capture/stations/planets

>>23308798
this guy has it right/ stationary and mobile are all relative terms in general, its just more poignant in space.

>>23308835
"Going faster" and "slowing down" just mean changing your speed. To change your speed a certain amount takes the exact same amount of work whether you are "speeding up" or "slowing down", these are words that wouldn't even have meaning without a reference point.

>>23308472
Okay It looks cool but why does it still have those re-entry foam tiles on the bottom. This thing clearly wasn't ever meant to re-enter atmo

File: Rolling.jpg (45KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 720x540px

>>23308765
>Iowa class battleships were designed with speed in mind
they were
>top seed 32.5 knots

>>23308835
I can tell you never took a mechanics course

>>23308885
Perhaps the front part is meant to be detachable, to serve as a re-entry capable lifeboat in the event that the larger ship is destroyed.

>>23308902
I haven't, so I suppose that's a good thing. I'm just confused on anon's reasoning that reducing one's speed is the same as increasing it.


Hell, I'm in /k/, why should I expect any different?

>>23308886
I stand corrected

>>23308885
it's from Iron Sky
none of it makes sense

>>23308935
Iron Sky

I think I watched this movie half drunk and tired after a long road trip. Don't remember it being in there.

All I remembered was
>moon
>Nazis
>Explosions
>tits

>>23308931
its the same because it requires the same amount of force in space.

>>23308886
>fuckhuge battleship with feet, not inches of armor wrapped around the hull, with gigantic fuckrape guns
>about 40 MPH, on the ocean
>not fast
GTFO.

File: 1413718665775.jpg (93KB, 537x537px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 537x537px

>>23308596
>>23308593
>>23308567
>>23308480
>>23308533
>>23308566

And then you realise that explosives in space are next to useless because there is no oxygen to carry the material.

You have to make bigger bangs to produce reasonable results.

In Halo the shipboard archer missiles were essentially nukes for this exact reason.

>>23308995
>no oxygen to carry the material.
I honest to god hope you're thinking of pressure waves. I literally can't believe someone would be dumb enough to say
>object in space powered by explosion cannot travel due to no air.

>>23308983
reading comprehension
not even once

File: 62c65ccb_b8ac_1249.png (55KB, 119x120px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 119x120px

>>23308995
please stop

basically all explosives come with their own oxidizer, so all they need is pressure and heat to set them off

>>23308995
That's just part of the good thing about missiles, payload is damn near whatever you want it to be, even if it's too bulky or fragile to be fired out of a railgun.

>it's 2014+a lot
>his missiles don't carry nuclear pumped X-ray laser payloads

The one thing that I love about Halo ships are their names. Bungie did good with that.

>>23309107
Just poems.
I'd love if there was a ship named "there will come a soft rain"

File: ISA_Cruiser.jpg (690KB, 780x2645px) Image search: [Google]

690KB, 780x2645px

We will probably have ships like the ISA cruisers which are flying skyscraper rather than flying battle ships

File: 1412018796680.jpg (28KB, 417x407px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 417x407px

>>23308674
>>23308673
>>23308670
>>23308663
>>23308651
>>23308644
>>23308627
>>23308614

How is no one remembering that you have no atmosphere In space?

You can literally turn anything on a dime. A 100,000 ton battle cruiser could dip its nose 90 degrees and carry on In that course in milliseconds.

It just simply isn't the same law of movement as it is here

>>23309117
http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/UNSC_Navy
Scroll down to the bottom, it's got a nice big list.

>>23309128
This....sort of.

Although in space you aren't restricted to the same building constraints.

The perfect ship?
A three metre diameter, 800 metre long needle. Impossible to detect.

>>23309146
Newtons first law still counts in space. You need BIG engines.

>>23309146
>You can literally turn anything on a dime
That's not how this works. In space, there is no drag. At all. Any turn you make has to include a burn to stop your momentum in another direction.

File: lander tan.jpg (323KB, 707x1000px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 707x1000px

>>23309146
>It just simply isn't the same law of movement as it is here
>inertia and mass don't exist in space

>>23309146
Nah nigga.
It still takes time. A big ship can't just say fuck you to inertia and turn on a dime, and even if it could, it would rip itself apart in the process.

I'm still saying just turn around, though. Why?

Well, let's say you have a huge ship that turns relatively slowly. Why is it huge? Most likely because it has a huge drive. And why would you want a huge drive? To go a longass way. Well, if you're going a longass way, the amount of time it takes to turn your ship around to start your deceleration burn is going to be a small part of your journey. You'd lose a lot more time packing on another main drive because you're wasting fuel and time accelerating and decelerating a pointless bit of extra payload.

Meanwhile, if you have a small ship with a small drive for more limited operations, you CAN turn on a dime anyway.

File: 1413254611160.png (98KB, 1140x1471px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1140x1471px

How has no one mentioned weapons in space are not allowed. It will be a long ass time before that changes, if it ever does.

File: 1545660.jpg (830KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

830KB, 1920x1080px

>>23308370
Later on perhaps, but in the earlier stages I think military ships would look something more like the Prometheus from Stargate, relying mostly on missiles and smaller kinetics as well as deployable fighter units

>>23308370
>cannon
>on space warfare vessels
>not just bristling with missiles

>>23309304
>fighters
>when you have missiles available

Why?

>>23309320
>fighters
>carrying a payload of fuck all
>can't just be shot down with barrages of missiles

For a brief run down what people will want out of military craft in space is. That fastest possible the smallest possible packing the most firepower possible. So we will probably end up with the equivelent of a single seat fighter that can jump across a galaxy and glass a planet, if there is any human pilot at all/

>>23308931
it's like this, if you have two objects on a blank empty space and they're moving towards each other, one moving towards the other is indistinguishable from both moving towards the other

stationary is relative
if I'm on a train, then my suitcase is stationary relative to me, but, to an observer, the suitcase is zipping by at 60 miles and hour

this is called relativity

similarly, speeding up and slowing down are indistinguishable without outside reference
your change in momentum between 0 and 100 and 100 and 200 km/s is the same

so is 100 to 0 and 0 to -100 km/s
do you udnerstand now?

>>23308722
kinetic weapons have fixed velocity. missiles don't. missiles can be guided, kinetics can't.

distances in space are huge and even an object traveling 12km/s can be easily dodged if you are just 100km away. 100km is practically kissing in terms of the solar system.

File: Dear-diary-today-op-was-not-a-faggot.jpg (31KB, 294x312px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 294x312px

>>23308370
Honestly the ship design can be radically different between things like nations, companies, brands, designations and roles.
You could have a frigate and a battleship sitting (floating whatever) next to each other and looks absolutely nothing alike. Mainly because design matters very little when friction and air current doesn't matter.

Hell if in the future the world continues to go the corporate route style may start to overlap function

> not in the military

> Implying the military doesn't become completely owned by corporations and your tanks start advertising pepsi

>>23309304
Close air support planet-side? They could also be used to harry an enemy ship as well, give him a hell of a lot more targets to shoot at, just a thought.

>>23308706
That's the same as saying "why don't airforces get active optical camo for their planes?". Because it's useless.

Derp

>>23309402
Meant for >>23309320

>>23308614
everyone else is stupid

you'd have retrograde boosters for combat maneuvering AND you'd also swing around the main engines for larger shifts in velocity with less time sensitivity than combat

>>23309283
The Outer Space Treaty bans nuclear weapons in orbit and weapons emplacement on "celestial bodies," but does not in fact ban conventional weapons in space.

The Russians orbited at least one 23mm cannon on a space station IIRC, and I am sure Russia, China, and the US all have some capability to put weapons in orbit, and thus probably have.

>>23309393

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX8Z2MDYX3g

>space warfare

Fighting over an area that is literally infinite. What a huge waste of time.

>>23309401
That's a horrible future.

>>23308672
Why are there "wings"
There's no reason for the engines to be that far out, the most practical design is a cube.

>>23309342
> implying that armor can keep up with weapon development.

Those fighters could be carrying rail guns capable of putting a dozen man sized holes literally swiss cheese your ship in one pass.

>>23309442
There was a movie where that happened.
A mercenary organization was in the middle east and had tanks and hummers that had literal advertisements on them.

File: Apoc940x705.jpg (512KB, 940x705px) Image search: [Google]

512KB, 940x705px

Amarr master race reporting in.

Halo fags BTFO

>>23308480
>>23308608
Thats like saying you can dodge bullets by moving out of the way.

>>23309402
>air support
>with space fighters
>when you have the ultimate high ground
>implying a fighter can do anything that a missile cannot do better for cheaper

>>23309431
Still fixed velocity, so it's still worse than missiles.

>>23309436
Nigger what.
You fight over the stuff IN space. Control of asteroids, moons, planets, and the power to tax and regulate travel between them. There's plenty to fight over in space.

File: 1413708112306.jpg (1MB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1536x2048px

>>23309453
> borg shill detected.

>>23309470
That the one with John Cuscack?

>>23309480
If you have twenty minutes to dodge the bullet, then you can.

>>23309480
You can. If the distances are large enough/you can move fast enough. Space is huge and you'd see a kinetic slug approaching you long before it hit.

>>23309475
Look at this master of excel simulator 2014.

>>23309483
This.

It's estimated that one of medium sized asteroids in our systems belt contains more iron then we've ever used

>>23308684
If we ever get into interstellar dogfights, I doubt the pilots will rely on windows to shoot down their targets, since space is so incredibly vast and the ships will be travelling extremely fast. We will rely on radars, computer displays, lasers, etc.

>>23309513
And there's an infinite number of such asteroids out there.

>>23309146
>this b8

Highschool physics nigga.

Inertia and shit.

>>23309489
I think? It's been years I don't even remember the title.
I do remember it was pretty damn funny and they had a secret headquarters in a Popeyes restaurant

>>23309516
>interstellar dogfights
HAH

>>23309480
No, it ain't.
If you want to fight in space, you're going to have to fight at huge standoff distances, which means significant travel time. It's not rifle fire coming at you from 100 paces. And you see what's coming, because there's no stealth in space. So you see what's coming from a longass way away and you avoid it.

>>23309504
that is Aurora 4x

>>23309475
>Apocalypse
Mah lazor brother!

>>23309530
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War,_Inc.

This one?

>>23309481
Hey, I don't know. I just said that the Prometheus seems feasible as an early ship and it also seems feasible that the military would want fighters on board, for whatever reason.

>>23309503
and this brings into question engagement ranges and the velocity of what we could call essentially gigantic space bullets compared to speed of targets.

>>23309522
>The total mass of the asteroid belt is estimated to be 2.8×1021 to 3.2×1021 kilograms, which is just 4% of the mass of the Moon.[2] The four largest objects, Ceres, 4 Vesta, 2 Pallas, and 10 Hygiea, account for half of the belt's total mass, with almost one-third accounted for by Ceres alone.[3][4]
>infinite

File: Can+someone+help+me+look+for+my+sides+_404d9413f1533fda5fc07f6e344e060d.jpg (28KB, 493x386px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 493x386px

>>23309527
> inertia n shit

Well put

>>23309475
>2003+11
>not playing the best sandbox game ever
>not licking the tears of the angry after you scam them/blow up their multi billion isk ship
its like you don't want to have fun

>>23309573
Fugg this was meant for this faggot
>>23309504

>>23309560
>seems feasible that the military would want fighters on board
Why?

>>23309564
In the universe, dipshit.

>>23309573
They only game where you level up by not playing

Yeah think I'll pass.

File: Daedalus.jpg (170KB, 1018x526px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1018x526px

USAF Carrier/Battlecruiser up in this bitch.

>>23309608
You still have to play to git gud.


Keep playing your communist games full of handouts and welfare.

>>23309573
My definition of fun is me doing my own shit and not having assholes bother me all the fucking time.

>>23309561

>ranges
Well you could probably spot the cannon firing from across the solar system. So that's that.

>>23309573
>play years ago, small Corp
>Corp mining op, I'm mining
>find my spot, deploy drones and jet can, align to station
>dumbass brings Mothership into belt instead of just sending fighters
>other Corp jumps in, most of us successfully run, Mothership goes pop
>they send our CEO a mail, they did it just because of stupid Mothership pilot
>CEO pissed as fuck, I chuckle because they were right

>>23309628
Join a nullsec alliance. Do your own thing all the time, and still have opportunities for Ebola fleet of death.

>>23309606
>In the universe
that's real useful when we can barely manage the effort to get to the moon

>>23309453
Radiators?

>But really it just looks cool

>>23309626
I'm sorry I enjoy fun. I already run one business.

>>23309606
>In the universe
I can't fathom what made you stupid enough to even think this was a response to anything.

File: Scale-comparison.jpg (191KB, 1200x467px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1200x467px

>>23308370
> implying with all those resources we won't say "fuck it" and create gigantic ships that are measured in kilometers more than anything else

>>23309665
Yet here we are talking about huge armored space missile frigates assaulting entire planets.

>>23309436
>air warfare

fighting over an area that is literally infinite. what a huge waste of time.

>>23309556
Yeah that movie was pretty fun

File: 1369370140321.png (225KB, 354x367px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 354x367px

>>23309606
Didn't I just say I don't know? I don't exactly know what kind of requirements there will be of military spacecraft when we get to that level.

>>23309571
Church brubruh

Church

>>23309708
In air warfare you fight to control the limited space that's below you. In space, this isn't the case.

>>23309727
Then it doesn't seem feasible at all, does it?

>>23309665
Space travel is kind of stuck right now because of two problems

> Fuel and propulsion

If we could get a significant discovery in either field space exploration would become a much more plausible thing

File: A BLOO BLOO BLOO.jpg (20KB, 205x276px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 205x276px

>>23309692

>>23309642
>Be on sunday bored as fuck
>CEO says hes going on a roam in a Domi
>Fuck it i'll join
>buy a thorax, quickly kit it out with blasters, plate, tackle and a repper (CEO had an armor rep booster alt with him.)
>So it was a Thorax(me) a Wolf and a Domi
>Fairly boring, went to venal to shoot carebears, had some guy in a scythe following us.
>CEO decides to hang back and see if the Scythe agresses
>The dumb nigger aggresses, domi unleashes his drones, we burn to him and apply liberal amounts of DPS all over his face.
>have to warp off barely in structure, warp back after repping armor a bit
>Scythe pops cyno
>tactically shit pants, waiting for massive hotdrop.
>a single redeemer appears as soon as the scythe pops
>ohfuckyes.jpg
>Apply moar DPS to redeemer, his tank fails hard because heavy neuts on domi.
>redeemer pops, 1 bil kill. Drops deadspace mods and faction mods.
>lols were had on TS, pap created, high fives all around

Long story short, they ended up gathering a 30+ man fleet to hot drop us again with blops ships. We die in glorious fire with minimal isk lost to theirs.

File: 1336124342344.jpg (217KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 1680x1050px

Superior design, coming through

>>23309707
we don't need to leave our solar system for reasons to build zero atmosphere warcraft

>>23309765
Ask a dude 70 years ago if you could store an entire library's worth of information on a device smaller than your thumb and he'd have laughed in your face

>>23309810
Yes and?

>>23309812
Been Reading Asimov recently, it's amazing to see what stood the test of time and what looks laughably outdated.

>>23309772
>>23309782
>>23309707
>>23309782
The closest star is four light-years away. It takes light, the fastest thing in the fucking universe, four years to get to the closest star to us in the fucking universe, and it's a podunk shithole with nothing of interest to say about it other than "it's the closest one". There's probably not even anything terribly interesting orbiting it.
There will never be a point where everything in the universe is easily accessible. We will never even come close. And even if we did, most of it is shit.

>>23309812
Ask the same dude if our vision of the future back then was anything close to how amazing and advanced it turned out and he'll also laugh in your face.

I don't see flying cars, robotic butlers or a moon colony. Do you?

We make guesses based on what we know now. Not on what we might know in 70 years.

>>23309888
whoops, accidental double quote.

>>23309888
>it doesn't have a habitable planet
>it must be shit

All this is besides the point. I said there is an infinite number of asteroids in the universe. There is.

>>23309742
the lanes in which you travel between points a and b are though

>>23309926
Fair enough.