IRL SPACE WARFARE

File: Soviet_Schematic_final.jpg (146KB, 720x1284px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 720x1284px

Soviet space battleship.

Haven't seen any schematics yet

File: US_Schematic.jpg (265KB, 1500x1500px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1500x1500px

European-American coalition design.

Again, I haven't found detailed interior schematics.

File: battleship28.jpg (81KB, 467x350px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 467x350px

Guys this is so fucking cool.

File: battleship2.jpg (67KB, 405x350px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 405x350px

NO REPLIES?!

>nuke it into orbit
>everyone around the pad gets cancer

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=673559448

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/index.php

I find these to be pretty good for this kind of stuff. Project Orion has always irked me because rockets are based on linear momentum transfer and an explosion (especially nuclear) is a rather poor way of transferring momentum in one direction. If you wanted to use the high energy density available in nuclear fission/fusion (and why wouldn't you?) you would get a much greater ISP (~efficiency) by using a magneto-plasma rocket using nuclear energy indirectly to propel a plasma out the back of your rocket. Just my two cents on a topic only tangentially related to the thread. Sorry OP.

File: 20161003185708_1.jpg (202KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 1920x1080px

>>31652417
>No Children of a Dead Earth Yet

/k/ I'm disappoint

http://store.steampowered.com/app/476530

>>31652442
>>31652427

How do you expect to find interior designs of imaginary battleships concepts made for the aforelinked movie?

>>31654084
Don't be sorry. Every other week there's a retarded man-child who believes the Orion propulsion design would have in any possible way been mechanically, economically or politically feasible for actual space travel.

>>31654084
>>31654151
It may not be the most efficient means but given that it was designed in the 1950s and estimated to be able to reach our nearest star in 70 years, it's quite an impressive concept.

Later designs with that notion had, instead of a plate or hollow cone containing the explosion, a parachute that would pull the ship behind it with most of the explosion turned into usable propulsion. A long tether and spool would play out and slowly reel back in, which would be much better than the giant shock absorbers previously conceived with the design.

The retarded man-childlike behavior is dismissing out of hand the work of all the scientists who did find it quite a feasible notion from the mechanical side of things. Politics and economics could well have gone differently historically if we'd put our minds to it as a major project.

>>31654093
>no coating of gold leaf for lasers
needs more bling

but for serious, is it gud? How many hours have you gotten out of it?

>>31652442
>1 grav hab
for what purpose? Just put it to a fraction and make the crew work out.

>200m wide
2 big

>>31652417
>MK 42 naval turret

Ok. So this thing is in space. Hundreds, if not thousands of kilometres away from it's target, which I'm going to assume is somewhere on earth.

....So what the FUCK do they hope for a 5 inch gun to do?

>>31655884
Kinetics hurt.

>hundreds of thousands of km
There is a large difference between maximum range, and effective range.

>>31655492
>who did find it quite a feasible notion from the mechanical side of things
Even with the "parachute idea" (which still wastes enormous amounts of energy in thermal radiation and enormous resources in the cost of constructing the thousands of required bombs), the mechanical complexity required is several orders of magnitude greater than the most complex nuclear/thermal reaction mass concepts, not to mention thousands of times more complex to refuel at the destination on any kind of reasonable mass budget for the ship itself.

>>31655917
What do you think a 5 inch shell is going to do? An actual, feasible kinetic bombardment weapon is a long tungsten rod, which is dropped with the force of a small nuclear bomb.

Now, a 5" shell (assuming the shell doesn't disintegrate in atmospheric reentry, is on target, and hasn't had it's ballistic properties completely ruined) could drop at less than what it's original muzzle velocity even was.

>>31656065
He thinks it's actually for ship to ship combat. As if that sort of kinetic weapon means jack shit at even orbital ranges, much less intra-solar system ranges.

Yep more of /k/'s retarded conceptualization of space combat rooted in japanese cartoons and Halo, and having fucking nothing to do with simple, practical realities.

>>31652417
But we don't plan on abandoning this planet for another two hundred years. Why would we make it uninhabitable for us?

File: 1383756001001.png (24KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 1000x1000px

>>31652427
>Блюcтитeльнo
Every fucking time.

>>31655833
bro he coated in aerogel for lasers

>>31656350
What does it mean?

File: 5OMPtNNh.jpg (73KB, 1024x591px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1024x591px

>>31652417
>projectrho.com
Best time sink ever anon. Especially http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/sidearmslug.php

>>31656484
It's reverse Runglish. "Блюcтитeль" is an actual noun meaning "guardian", but adding suffix -нo turns it into a non-existing adverb, something like "guardianly".

>>31655884
Pop missiles?

>>31656113
>just shoot straight at it, it'll be fine!
>what do you mean it's travelling thousands of metres a second?

>>31656535
CIWS, Lasers, and anti-missile missiles would literally all be more effective than a fucking 5" naval gun for shooting down missiles.

>>31652417
That looks like a slug design taofledermaus would shoot at hard drives and lead plates.

>>31656782
>CIWS and defensive interceptors were well known in the early 1960s
>lasers are still uncertain
You might as well criticize airscrew battleships that are trying to cross the T.

but srs
is CoaDE good?
because I'm gonna buy it.

need review by anon

>>31659301
There's problems with it like any kind of early access game, but the important thing about it, the physics and weapon simulation is very good in most respects.

There's some specific problems with that, like the missile guidance AI being utterly shit and turrets being rotated using reaction wheels for some inexplicable reason, but they're known issues that are being worked on.

>>31656065
Oh god, the tungsten rod meme. That would be both incredibly wasteful and incredibly ineffective in comparison to its' price.

>>31660055
Thank you anon

>>31656208
The nukes are supposed to be used as propulsion. It would spit a spahped nuclear charge out behind it and after it got a certain distance away from the charge would detonated pushing the ship forward

>>31660066
Tungsten Rods would be a strategic orbit-to-surface munition. Not suitable for supporting ground troops.

Its for prepaned targets and depending on the system's orbit may have time limitations. It makes as much sense and keeping an Iowa class battleship.

>>31663703 #

Tungsten rods don't work for bombardment and aren't cost efficient.

Firstly, a telephone tungsten rod AT MOST will shatter windows and do explosive damage in a very tiny radius because the ground will absorb almost all its kinetic energy as the rod sinks hundreds of feet in the ground.

Dirt just isn't resistant enough to transfer its energy fast enough. A 16 inch battleship shell would do more damage.


But.... The rods from god concept is COOL AS FUCK.

I guess ceramic coated 5 inch shells would work for orbital bombardment. Two problems though. The gravity free conditions in orbit might make the shells not resist exiting the barrel so tons of powder might be wasted. Second, the light refraction of the atmosphere would have to be accounted for. Kinda like if you're spearing fish from shore, you have to aim where the fish isn't.