524/62/253/1

>>33215681
human warfare in space would be very similar to submarine warfare.

File: 1321764133499.jpg (272KB, 1412x1000px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 1412x1000px

>>33215681
depends.
its much harder to be stealth in space, because space is lots of nothing and is pretty easy to be spot there, you know, against nothing.
but damn, if you can find a way to curve space, you can hide anything.
realistic, already existent tech says no, we cant have stealth in space.

>>33215704
In what ways.

>>33215710
I can agree with torpedos and ships that are like subs, but heck, you cant be stealthy in space.

>>33215724
Why not? Space is black. Paint your ship blank and bam stealth.

No, and it will probably involve swarms of missiles/drones, guns will fire super small fast moving projectiles. Armor is too expensive and heavy, so no space battleships either. It's all about active defense, send a swarm of stuff to shoot down their swarm of stuff, mop up anything that gets through with a final swarm of stuff protecting your capitals.

>>33215681
they only way to stealth inaspace it to basicly shut everything down and find a way to shut down all emmisions.
even then there will be ways for you to be found

>>33215736
>>33215735
>>33215724
>>33215707
What about this concept.

http://toughsf.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-hydrogen-steamer-stealth-spaceship.html

I am to dumb to tell if its bullshit or not.

What do you think is better in space warfare large powerful ships or a swarm of small fighter sized craft attacking? Assuming that there are no energy shields and both ships are using kinetic weapons.

Yes, in the sense that the man who has the longest ranged sensors fires first and likely wins, so being hidden from your enemy by virtue of out ranging him will be vital to success.

Your engines are going to be a huge beacon showing everyone who cares to look your position, velocity, acceleration and mass. And with the engine shut off, you're just coasting along, making it trivial to make an order-of-blast-radius approximation of where you'll be at any given time.

At closer ranges you'd also have to hide all your waste heat behind your ship or that'd stand out like a sore thumb.

Missile spam (offensive and defensive) with some CIWS seems like the order of the day.

File: 1315205020842.jpg (974KB, 1440x720px) Image search: [Google]

974KB, 1440x720px

no, no stealthy on the nearest future
1-generating energy creates heat, heat must be released
2-maneuvering the ship generates more heat
3-life support is basically generating heat inside the ship so...
4-firing guns will generate heat

You can have stealth coating - you SHOULD have stealth coating to reduce your radar signature, but your ship will not be stealth, it can be find by heat sensors, then by optics.

>>33215735
You would want at least some anti-laser armour to stop the enemy from zapping you from crazy distances away, you can cut their effective ranges down massively with that.

>>33215681

There is a design based around using a helium or nitrogen to cool off the surface of a ship and then using that same helium or nitrogen as propelant by concentrating solar energy with lenses into a tunsten nucleus that heats up the gas and creates propulsion.

The thing is that I don't trust the data around that ship, the ship is suposed to be with an interior enviroment of 298K and then just cool off the surface into 22k(hydrogen) or even 4k(helium)... with energy shits exponential and you still need energy to cool off the ship.

But there is that.

Otherwise no, your ships needs to be around 298K and the heatbuild up will make the addition of any radiator to cool off the ship a total must(even a weakpoint). And seeing 298k(or more, a shipt is more than just the living quarters) against the background of space is like a light bulb in a dark room.

>>33215730
if your enemies are somehow retarded, cant get into radar and thermographers, yeah, just paint it black.
but in space generating heat is like to be alone in a big empty parking lot at night using those shoes who lit up a lead every time you take a step. if anyone is looking your general direction, they see you.

>>33215745
It isn't necessarily impossible, the problem is so much of your weight is going to be dedicated towards stealth. The problem there is you can carry less munitions relative to the amount of fuel you need, so already it's less effective at fighting. Combine that with the fact that your missiles and drones probably don't have stealth if you want them to not be extremely heavy and bulky, and they'll see you the second you start firing. They'll notice you if you get too close, so what is even the point of it all? Maybe it could work as a smuggling or VIP transport ship, but not a warship.

File: 1.jpg (1MB, 2000x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1200px

What do you guys think military space ships will look like.

Spheres? Boxes? Tubes? some other shit?

>>33215759
That's true, laser armor at most. Probably an aerogel of some sort, on the Children of a Dead Earth forums we've been discussing nitrile rubber/aramid fiber (The current dominant laser armors) aerogel, or fixing an error in graphite aerogel that should make it far more resistant to lasers and cheaper than either of the aforementioned.

>>33215745
>http://toughsf.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-hydrogen-steamer-stealth-spaceship.html
you will end generating heat that need to be vented somehow.
you also would end with a hulking ship with very little speed, maneuverability and offensive capability.

File: 782ccacc9c856f28fc93a0fff77c2d43.jpg (239KB, 1500x674px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1500x674px

>>33215776
Either a cylinder or a armored box.
>you need armor against laser fire or some asshole spamming ball bearings in front of your ship.

File: 1303514616136.jpg (341KB, 4000x1200px) Image search: [Google]

341KB, 4000x1200px

>>33215776
probably will look like dildos, but I hope they end looking like anything else.
fuck, now I have to play STO again

File: 1488166128605.jpg (38KB, 600x438px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 600x438px

>>33215681

one might use the "If I can't stop them from knowing I'm here I can at least make sure they don't know where I am" approach. And just go balls to the walls with decoys and other shit to mask the heat signature of your ship in other heat signatures.
a) to try and swarm sensors, precises instruments tend to have issues with data input in to high a volume/mass
b) confuse the logic engine used for target priority/targeting. to delay you getting shot
c) bluff the felshy bits to think they are facing a fleet no a ship and to run

Problems would be a) cost
b) the effect this has on your capacity to detect enemies. (give up first strike in the hope they hit the decoys and then strike back?)

File: Hyperion.jpg (299KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 1920x1080px

>>33215809

>>33215755
>NCC-2260
>USS Mughi-chan

File: 1297273414257.jpg (150KB, 1200x431px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1200x431px

>>33215823
agree
we may also see a return to old naval tactics, fortifications and even heavily armored ships.
would be cool AF

File: 1274722243462.jpg (379KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 1920x1200px

>>33215903
dont talk ship about my waifu, I will fite you!

Best quote I've ever heard about stealth in space.

"Practical stealth technology on a spacecraft is kind of like hiding naked in a bramble patch. It can be done, but it's a thorny business and most of its effectiveness comes from most normal people not thinking anyone could be crazy or stupid enough to actually try it."

No.

Play CHoDE for a representation of space warfare based entirely around math and physics instead of conjecture. Instead of trying to force reality to bend to the will of some theorycrafter the dev just took all the math he could find and asked it what a space warship will look like.

>>33216069
I thought chode was still bugged so that the equations for lasers and magnetic accelerators was whack.

>>33216077
Recent update unfuck ed it somewhat. Railguns are still a bit iffy in the velocity department as far as mathematical accuracy goes but it's a lot better than it was. Approximating multivariate equations like that is shonkey business on a good day.

File: 1488398333471.jpg (142KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 600x600px

>>33215681
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect.php

This guy has alot of space related theories and shit check em out

>>33215681
Nope. Unless you found a way to cheat the second law of thermodynamics.

File: pls happen.png (403KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 640x360px

>US Ships will be a mix of Star Trek and Star Wars
>British Ships will be Starship Troopers
>Japanese ships will literally be Space Battleship Yamato and Gundam

File: 1484159098537.jpg (332KB, 1200x1117px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 1200x1117px

>>33216877
Holy 77 confirm

>>33215681
reported

sage

>>33215828
Oh hey, that's my desktop background.

>>33216877
>British Ships will be Starship Troopers

And not the faggy film ones either

>>33215681
The answer is yes, but it will only work at long range.

Take a few photography courses and you'll learn what exposure time, resolving power and low light conditions really mean.

>>33215776
Ships will be armored in a primary direction and have armor slanted to protect from that direction.

So they will look like battleships but upside down.

>>33215776
>What do you guys think military space ships will look like.

Like submarines, more or less.

Long tubes with some shit sticking out in a few places.

>>33216077
coilguns and railguns are unfucked and no longer violate physics and lasers are fragile as fuck now. Weapons also have capacitors now.

also turrets can be mounted to fire along the hull so you can have massive forward firepower.

File: Gunskiff_Screenshot[1].jpg (352KB, 1041x558px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 1041x558px

>people think ChoDE is the same game it was last week

File: 28. Dreams in Darkness.xvid_snapshot_19.40_[2016.08.22_19.50.15].jpg (54KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 640x480px

There is no stealth in space.
Warning, time sink!
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect.php

File: 1316983310023.jpg (114KB, 1280x691px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1280x691px

>>33216919
sir, let me say you have good taste

>>33217824
nigga you ain't smart for repeating the same shit in every thread.

the assumptions about the magical telescope network is simply absurd

>>33215772
Don't we already have paint that takes care off thermographes? As for radar, wasn't that shit figured out in the 90s? I mean we already have both aircrafts and boats that can go undetected from it.

And if your talking about the exhaust heat I mean you could simply use another propelant such as gas and cool it to same temperature as the surrounding space

you have to find a way to be invisible to thermal imaging.

>>33217984
>Don't we already have paint that takes care off thermographes?
no.
but we have "smart" armor that can change and suppress some of the heat signature.
remember, in space, you are the ONLY source of heat against a big blank background.
we could, and should, reduce emission, but you cant stop leaking heat in the vacuum

>>33218023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzpVkhm-Otk

>>33217984
You could smear 19th century soot on a spaceship and it would reduce its visual spectrum to near nil.

Literally the only way to detect it would be infrared emissions and infrared cameras suck. 373K is a wavelength of 7µm

>>33218023
>in space, you are the ONLY source of heat against a big blank background.
factually incorrect there are trillions of stars and galaxies too small to resolve behind every pixel of the camera.

File: 1461387337430.jpg (35KB, 770x511px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 770x511px

>>33215681
What people forget when talking about stealth in space is that while planes need to go fast to stay in the air, spaceships need not do so. Planes need to stay well clear of obstacles, spaceships do not.

Not all space warfare needs to be long distance missile slinging or pew pew at very high velocities, with both combatants way out in a lot of empty space. What would anyone even do there?

I suggest the following scenario: You have entities wealthy and advanced enough to wage war in space, that means you have a lot of industry and infrastructure in space. That means structures and traffic and junk and raw materials, all offering...say it with me:

Cover and concealment.

And that's where you'll find stealth in space.

Plus, almost anything that happens will likely happen in low-ish orbit, so you can even hide (periodically) behind the body you're orbiting.

If you're really cheeky, you may even just disguise your warship as some civilian vessel.

>>33217984
>>33218058
Daily reminder that
A) They saw you launch
B) Your body heat is a serious problem. Body heat as in the fucking crew.
C) You lit up like the fourth of July burning into your present orbit.
D) You WILL pass in front of some distant light-emitting object at some point and that will fuck you too.

>>33218023
Isn't it the same with high altitude aircrafts? As far as I know there aren't exactly a lot of heat at 50,000 feet/15,000 m in the night

>>33218158
you can radiate heat directionally (like backwards away from your enemy) and keep your ship cool otherwise. it's not magic.

>>33218088
really, the faint glow of stars and galaxies far away wont hide your heat signature, as a matter of fact, the fact we can detect such faint heat signals only shows how easy would be to spot closer heat sources.
but space is big, maybe the enemy is not looking in the right direction

>>33218158
>A) They saw you launch
and misidentified as routine civilian traffic
>B) Your body heat is a serious problem. Body heat as in the fucking crew.
I never heard about insulation before, I guess all spaceships involve cooling the crew by sticking their bare ass out of the airlock.
>C) You lit up like the fourth of July burning into your present orbit.
adiabatic expansion of the exhaust in the nozzle can reduce the exhaust temperature to something extremely cold. In fact too much expansion is dangerous because it can result in the exhaust freezing on the nozzle bell.
>D) You WILL pass in front of some distant light-emitting object at some point and that will fuck you too.
You're going to need several kinds of sensors, you have your high magnification, high angular resolution telescopes for identification and wide angle low resolution sky searchers. Those sky searchers don't see so good. Plus these telescopes will be ignoring very bright objects and partial occlusion from a transit is indistinguishable from noise or a natural satellite occlusion.

Stealth doesn't mean invisible and it doesn't mean you cannot find or see the object. Stealth means your job is becoming prohibitively difficult.

Plus telescopes only see a narrow range of frequencies and do not provide a full spectrum in a timely manner.

>>33215772
Position yourself between the enemy and the sun.

>>33218297
the thing people forget is how huge space is. a few light minutes out in the solar system you can't even detect earth with a normal resolution camera. and a spaceship is incomparably tinier than a planet or a moon.

standard stealth techniques will include wedged shape black hull that will reflect any radar or lidar at an angle that will definitely not go back to the source, heat regulated outer mantle (you don't want to be cooler than the background radiation you would just make a black spot), directional heat radiators and most importantly distance. distance is great it makes active detection methods very unreliable as they would lose power with r^4.

>>33218383
watch this to get a feel how huge space is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AAU_btBN7s

>>33218158
>They saw you launch
From where? The planet? In that case launch on the other side of it. I mean you must have some knowledge where your enemy is relative to you

>Your body heat is a serious problem. Body heat as in the fucking crew
Isn't it the same with modern aircafts? simpel internal insulation should take care of that

>You lit up like the fourth of July burning into your present orbit
I asume we are talking about entering obit from the planet, If such is the case then well enter it from the other side. It's kinda hard to mesure the temperature of something on the wrong side of a planet

>You WILL pass in front of some distant light-emitting object at some point and that will fuck you too.
What he said >>33218297

>>33218197
>you can radiate heat directionally (like backwards away from your enemy)
No, you can't, not completely. All exterior surfaces will radiate heat.

Also btw, blackbody radiation is the same regardless of what material is radiating, so don't think we can just invent non-radiating paint like how we have radar-absorbing paint.

File: 16195381_1233420736694310_1739161699302818716_n.jpg (52KB, 640x389px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 640x389px

Absolutely, it may not be stealth in the same function or manner as aircraft, but the ability to remain undetected and to detect your enemy has been crucial in every aspect of human warfare.

File: MissileSpam.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

Probably not; it'll most likely involve spamming missiles to the point where the enemy's missile defense is overwhelmed.

>>33215785
>or fixing an error in graphite aerogel

Explain?

Actually the fuck is graphite aerogel.. I mean I'm taking a guess based off the name it's aerogel impregnated with or made from graphite... but I'm not on the up-and up on new tech (well aside from lithium metal batteries. very interested in those.)

>>33218418
you can definitely control the direction of the radiation. like i said stealth systems operate on this principle. and again distance is a bitch. your detection will be worthless on a ship sized object a couple off light minutes away (which is pretty much missile range in space).

>>33218490
It has the thermal conductivity of normal graphite, when it should be far lower due to all the vacuum pockets. Other than that, it has a higher melting point and is 12 times lighter and about 4 times cheaper than silica aerogel, which almost made the cut for good laser armors but it all came down to nitrile rubber for cost optimized or aramid fiber for weight optimized.

>>33218506
All these theoretical cold engines and coatings have to work perfectly but kill your delta-v and twr at the same time. In the meantime it's easier to construct large telescopes to observe enemy planets for burns and scatter sensors around your own planets and moons (which if you destroy tells your enemy that you're there).

>>33218547
How do they know where I am if I take out the sensors with stealth missiles? Check mate.

>>33218506
>>33218403
It is difficult to have a conversation with simpletons who read something (intelligent) on a pretty good website and suddenly it is gospel.

>>33218418
Blackbody radiation depends upon surface temperature and no physical material is a perfect black body and will have emission or absorption lines.

Now if a material is cooler it will not have its higher energy emission lines.

Overall you can make materials close enough to a black body spectrum, in practice the higher energy part of the black body curve tends to be underrepresented in reality.

Just remember, if a wavelength is ten times longer, you need a telescope that is ten times wider.

>>33218547
>All these theoretical cold engines and coatings have to work perfectly
not really like i said they only decrease the distance of detection it's not magic. also you radiate heat and everything backwards forward is shielded and actively cooled, it's not too fancy. the heat radiators will definitely be visible from the direction they are pointed to sure.

but to actually spot a ship even if his ass is towards you at a few light minutes means you are anally focusing on a tiny segment of space and actually know it has to be there.

>>33218563
It's better to drop a satellite with a laser. Stealth missiles are even dumber.

>>33218586
Problem with lasers is that it's a slippery slope, you want to destroy it from far enough away that it doesn't see you? Then you'll need a bigass laser with a bigass reactor that both have a bigass heat signature, nothing stealthy about that. You want to have a low power laser that's hard to detect? Then you have to get close enough that they'll see you anyways.

>>33218586
missiles accelerated to kinetic kill on a stationary target and left on ballistic approach will pretty much be undetectable until it's too late.

>>33218547
>theoretical cold engines and coatings have to work perfectly but kill your delta-v and twr
payload in general will kill delta-v and twr, but you'd be a fool to forget your payload.

and cold engines do not kill delta v. They have a larger bell nozzle and actually have a higher ISP because it extracts more work from the exhaust.

>>33218584
And now your ship is also blind you can only show the shielded side. The moment you perform any burn to enter his planetary bodies you also get detected by satellites placed above or below your plane.

>>33218607
or if you re not confident in a direct hit put a nuke on it and it will obliterate shit in a km radius.

>>33218618
Nukes don't obliterate shit in space.

>>33218543
Ok, I understood everything up until you got to the nitrile rubber bit....

Taking a wild guess (no capability to search right now because my internet is behaving strangely) the nitrile rubber and the aramid fiber is the material that the aerogel would be in theory attached to, or it would be some form of coating to bind it all together, rather than having just having an aerogel "plate" so to speak, the nictrile rubber or aramid fiber would act as a pouch, IIRC aerogel is kinda brittle.

>>33218543
>It has the thermal conductivity of normal graphite, when it should be far lower due to all the vacuum pockets

Seems weird but I dunno.

>>33218543
That's because its still doing quatum tunneling of quanta and the voids do not change this.

File: 1483726891668.gif (278KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 640x360px

>>33215681

>Stealth
>In Space

Completely impossible.

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

>>33218615
>And now your ship is also blind
no it's not, passive sensors have much greater range anyhow.
>you can only show the shielded side
yes that is generally what a stealth approach will mean. when it's time you reveal yourself no longer have to hold the trajectory.
>The moment you perform any burn to enter his planetary bodies you also get detected by satellites placed above or below your plane.
you will be detected way sooner than that. but that's not the point of stealth in space the point is to get your forces into position and surprise the enemy. you can also use celestial bodies as cover for a long time obviously altho sensor nets will make that pointless.

>>33218618
>>33218627
use terminal rocket guidance.

just use a timer and keep it in sleep mode for the transit.

nukes just melt a few micrometers of the surface paint.

>>33218578
>It is difficult to have a conversation with simpletons who read something (intelligent) on a pretty good website and suddenly it is gospel.

To whom is this referring to?

>>33218635
No, just straight up nitrile rubber or aramid fiber. Like covering your ships in a giant rubber glove or kevlar vest.

>>33218654
projectrho fags who think the science is settled.

>>33218627
they do, especially sats, but their range is very limited and there is no blastwave effect on the scale there is at the atmospheric ground surface.

but when the ionizing radiation hits material it turns the surface into a giant propulsion plate the internal shockwaves will be a killer and the evaporating plates will probably thermal kill you too.

a few hundred meters in nukes are very much lethal bigger nukes up to a km.

>>33218667

It very much is. There is no way to hide a spaceship in any meangingful way.

>>33218655
I don't follow, I thought the idea was for laser armor... I don't recall Nitrile rubber or aramid fiber having very good properties for that, but that's not really my area of expertise. I'd have to spend a bit of time researching into all this stuff

>>33218693
Not an argument

>>33218708

I wasn't arguing. Just stating a fact.

>>33218700
Off the top of my head, aramid fiber is good because it's a fiber with a high melting point. Fibers aren't ablated as quickly because some of the vapor is vented in between the fibers rather than just tearing shit up iirc. No idea what makes nitrile rubber so good.

>>33218708
As opposed to all the calculations wishful thinking stealthfags have come up with.

>>33218720
it would be a fact if you could prove it. but you can't. a ship coming in at ballistic trajectory with cold drives and a stealth mantle and internal heat sink would be practically (not theoretically of course) undetectable for a good duration.

>>33218722
no dude no. against lasers you want shit that is very hard to tear electrons off. basically you want ceramics.

>>33218722
Ok I'm now going to have to look this shit up because when I got to "melting point" my mind went into a "wait wut" spiral.... I'm taking a guess here, it's a manufactured fiber or a fibrous mineral like asbestos and that's why it's great for insulating from lasers.

Regardless, gonna go power cycle my router and see if that sorts out a weird ping issue I'm having then go look that shit up. sounds like an interesting material.

>>33218746

There is no such thing as a "cold drive." Any type of engine will produce a fuckload of heat.

>>33218760
Ceramics have good melting points, but very high thermal conductivity. They'll absorb heat too quickly for their melting points to matter.

>>33218786
Yes, aramid fiber is exactly that. It's a polymer fiber, often used for fire protection clothing.

File: 20170306163557_1.jpg (279KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 1600x900px

>>33218787
Is 10K cold enough for you? (-263.15°C or -441.67°F)

>>33218604
You don't need to destroy the sensor, you just need to heat it up slightly. Infrared telescopes are easy to jam if you know where they are, and if there's no stealth in space then you must know where they are.

>>33218867
How are you going to jam hundreds, if not thousands of satellites at once for months? Either you need a swarm of drones with weak lasers, which have a fairly large combined heat signature, or a capital ship with one reactor powering a lot of weak lasers, again with the heat signature. Whenever these satellites go behind a moon or planet they get plenty of time to cool their sensors, or they can just close shutters then reopen them when cooled down.

>>33215681
>Will space warfare involve stealth.
No!

Unless you're sitting in the corona of a sun you won't be able to hide your thermal emissions against the backdrop of space. You will light up like a Christmas tree.

>>>/m/

>>33217984
>cool it to same temperature as the surrounding space

This is where you fail in your understanding of space.

Space is neither hot nor cold it HAS NO TEMPERATURE. Space is essentially absence. Something has to actually be made of matter to have a temperature. It would not matter if you're ship was red hot or -300 degrees Celsius it's going to show up on a thermal graph.

>>33215704
This. Read an article many years back (can't remember the magazine) that discussed how it would likely be a regression towards Cold War sub tactics. See your enemy first=shoot first, and poking a hole in your enemy usually=victory. No Star Wars style broadside assaults, more likely slow, calculated evasive maneuvering.

File: Expanse _TychoStation_Concept_03v4 - Copy.jpg (748KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

748KB, 1920x1080px

>>33218928

Came here to post this.

Love that show, best scifi series since DS9.

>>33218788
it's not about the melting point as much as the reflection and the resistance to tear electrons off.
lasers can cut through stuff without melting them.

File: Nauvoo launch.webm (3MB, 728x410px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 728x410px

>>33219081
>You will never steal a ship that the Mormons spent years, and millions of dollars building.

>>33219042
background thermal radiation neger you don't want to be absolutely cold you just want to be the same temperature as the background.

>>33219087
Reflection doesn't really matter, because reflective materials don't stay reflective for long when ablation starts destroying the finish. With a laser powerful enough to cut through stuff without melting at the given range, you're fucked, if you use something that can stop it from cutting it'll just melt it because that's a lot of god damn power.

>>33219133
>Reflection doesn't really matter, because reflective materials don't stay reflective for long when ablation starts destroying the finish.
you couldn't be more wrong about that. there is no oxygen too interact with it will not be a real burning or oxidation. as you ablate the surface underneath it it's just the same metal.

>>33215704
I'm an aerospace major

This post made me want to fucking throw up

>Will space warfare involve stealth.
Stealth is 100% impossible in space

>>33219154
It'll destroy the finish because it won't evenly heat it, the laser will drift around a bit and that will cause uneven heating. Also the rapidly expanding gases can essentially cause an explosion and blast material out of the way.

>>33219112

Yeah, so I guess its just unmanned and hurtling out into space forever at this point eh.

>>33218949
>you need a swarm of drones with weak lasers, which have a fairly large combined heat signature
You can't hide the drones, but because they're much smaller than a ship, the enemy has to get much closer before he can put accurate fire into them. If he's not using similar tactics, you'll be able to shoot him first in most engagements.

>Whenever these satellites go behind a moon or planet they get plenty of time to cool their sensors, or they can just close shutters then reopen them when cooled down.
Then they can't see at all. Either way is a win.

>>33219164
what if you have a highly reflective material with a high heat conductivity connected to tank filled with something that can store a lot of heat? could you tank a laser long enough to let your own laser fry the bad guys?

>>33219197
Then why even bother jamming their satellite network with a bunch of drones with lasers too weak to do anything but jam a satellite network if jamming said network won't hide them anyways? They'll be able to see, as soon as the optics cool down they can open it up again and start looking. Also, hitting drones is no problem. Just look at how precise Hubble is.

>>33219226
Should do enough to decrease the enemies maximum effective range, and that's all it really takes if you just stay out of their range. Not sure if it'd be worth the weight versus just adding more ablative armor though.

>>33219164
>It'll destroy the finish
what finish i'm talking about stuff like an inch thick of copper or aluminum armor slanted at about 30 degrees.

when you hit that with laser of sufficient strength most of the beam will be reflected due to the angle and properties of the metal. like 90% i'm unsure on the exact number, your laser will not be a tight beam at distances of space warfare either and as ships move probably won't be hitting the same spot for long. we are probably talking about feet wide beams or wider at 10% effectiveness. gigawatt lasers wouldn't do shit so you need terawatt lasers for this to do anything. generating that will be a machinery of the size of a housing block plus a huge fucking reactor. you could pack about a hundred anti-ship missile into that space and weight.

>>33219267
well the thing with storing the heat is that then you can radiate it later on and continue with your mission instead of having to turn back to base to get another set of armor, and you can always use your own fuel as heat sink ,or one of those aerogels

File: 20170306172019_1.jpg (224KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1600x900px

>>33219042
>>33219120
>>33219160
This rocket engine expels atomic hydrogen and carbon at a temperature of 10 Kelvin. It has no other emissions besides the nuclear reactor's radiation.

You could even make it cooler than 10K. You could even have a tank of hydrogen or other gas to cool your equipment and use a similar nozzle to cool the exhaust below the background temperature.

You can be very very cold and have thrust.
>>33218843

Game doesn't let me go above 1000 expansion ratio. But it dissipates one megawatt of heat to the temperature of cosmic background radiation at the cost of one kilogram a second. So this is more of a cooler than a thruster. 4.45kN is still usable thrust, just not ideal with the poor ISP.

>>33219356
I fucked up this post, first part refers to the propane engine, second part is 2.61kg/s

>>33219307
It won't stay perfectly reflective outwards because all of that uneven heating will destroy the material in an uneven shape, making lots of pits and grooves that interreflect with the sides of themselves rather than reflecting it straight out into space.

>>33219356
For a rocket that cold, try replacing the steel with boron. Diamond is good for hotter rockets. Should vastly reduce the weight.

>>33217716
>And not the faggy film ones either
Is there another kind ?
I've never seen any pics or even descriptions of how the ships would look outside of how they were portrayed in the film's

>>33219170

Pretty sure they're going to recover it and it'll come up later.

>>33219412
wasn't trying to optimize

part of the fun is showing something that works suboptimal. What really kills it is not being able to use a higher expansion ratio.

>>33215735
>weight
>mattering in space

? ? ?

>>33219433

Weight doesn't matter in space but mass does.

>>33219433
try to accelerate a mass

>>33219356
is that thing accurate or does that rocket runs on meme physics like the magical 2000% efficiency coilguns

>>33219433
If weight, or more correctly mass didn't matter in space then tapping anything in space would be enough force to send it flying away just shy of the speed of light. Everything would be flying away from each other to rapidly for a universe to form. All of reality would be consumed by CLANG

>>33219463
rocket is mostly accurate, it just is shit because its chamber temperature is only 107K.

With a higher expansion ratio it could have a hotter chamber and higher ISP and give more thrust at less fuel.

coilguns are no longer magical

>>33215735
If we start manufacturing star-ships in space and use asteroids as sources of materials this could allow ships to have lots of armor because the main problem with armoring ships in space is the cost of getting the materials up there.

>>33219576
The main problem with armoring ships is that it takes a shitload of fuel to push that armor around, so you need bigger fuel tanks which need more armor to cover them. Can get around that to some degree, but in general armor will just be against assholes spamming sand and lasers. Also notable is that thick armor isn't even all that good in space, projectiles can be sent extremely fast with no atmosphere stopping them and fast moving projectiles turn themselves and some of the stuff they hit into plasma, which destroys the armor very effectively.

>>33218928
SHAKY CAM IN SPACE

fucking disgusting. a guy can enjoy a spectacular sci-fi battle sequence without some bullshit fake cinematography.

>>33219463
Coil guns got fixed

File: Misty satellite signature reduction.jpg (33KB, 500x354px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 500x354px

>>33215681
>Will space warfare involve stealth.
It already does.

>>33217984
>Don't we already have paint that takes care off thermographes?
Low emissivity paint? Yeah, but it doesn't work in space since there's no convection. These coatings work on Earth because some heat is still carried away by air convection. In space, this doesn't happen, so the surface in question would inevitably still heat up until it reaches thermal equilibrium.

That said, these fags are out of their minds when they suggest you can pick up a heat source of just a few kilowatts from thousands of kilometers away like it's fucking nothing. You'd have to be damn lucky to manage that.

>>33219112
>millions
is that right, because that shit was big AF, I cant see how anyone would build it without spending Billions? and I am taking in consideration that in the future space building is far,, far cheaper and the almighty dollar is much more valuable

>>33219356
>1.7 km/s
SAD
A
D

>>33218353
that limits your movements...a lot.
but yes, it could fool passive sensors.

>>33215772
This is a very poetic metaphor, thank you anon

>>33218170
the magic of atmosphere makes easier to hide heat signatures.
if you don't have to take a medium like atmosphere in consideration, you can get better thermal readings

File: Nauvoo hologram.webm (3MB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 800x450px

>>33219936
Space dollars are really valuable.

>>33216877
Will there be German space subs?

>>33219979
lower frequencies are more difficult to image.

An equivalent telescope has half the angular resolution at twice the wavelength. Infrared is 100 times worse than visible.

>>33218023
>>33218056
>>33218088
damn.
I was of the opinion that stealth is impossible, but alas, lo and behold, a slim chance of stealth is possible:
using adaptive smart armor to control the heat emissions so you can match the background.
but that would work only at LOOOONG range and for very short periods, cause there is no way the heat generated wouldn't surpass the heat dissipated in that stealth module.
could be a way to hide that big fat ass mother ship as it enters the solar system and it is not detected till it is too close for comfort.

>>33217824
>>33216106
>>33218640
>Spacecraft are inherently giant fucking space dreadnoughts and anything smaller is impossible
>They fundamentally have massive nuclear drives that run constantly, wasting entire planets' worth of nuclear energy
>Under these very specific circumstances detection is unavoidable, and real examples of stealth/detection failure in space are irrelevant
>This is the only credible vision of space warfare, even though it bears absolutely no resemblance to actual spaceflight whatsoever
For fuck's sake, these spergs don't even understand what insulation is and you expect me to take them seriously?

>>33220066
do you realize that in space you have to lose that heat or you will cook?
you cant store it indefinitely, and heat storage would take huge, REALLY HUGE structures.
and even if concede you could hide the heat for a while, but the issue of propulsion revealing your position would remain. we still don't have a way to move a huge ship without making a noticeable BOOM every time it needs to speed up, slow down or change directions

>>33219356
When you consider the need for a serpentine nozzle the miserable exhaust velocity and twr go down further.

>Expanse has no lasers
>You can build crazy lasers in COADE and we don't even have even crazier shit like nuclear pumped lasers

>>33219356
10 kelvin is a shitload more than 0 kelvin, buddy.

>>33220180
Not really, you just float a plug halfway through.

Plus all that loss can be recovered with expansion later on.

Even then it isn't that bright.

>>33220066

Insulation doesn't eliminate the need to vent heat. Any form of propulsion system, hell even the basic life-support systems on-board the ship, are going to generate heat which has to be vented outwards. Otherwise the crew burns to death from heat build-up. You could use a heat-sink to delay the venting for a bit, but that would be an imperfect solution and even then you'd only be able to do it for a short period of time until the heat sink reaches maximum capacity and the ship is forced to start venting heat again.

>>33215681
A GRB aimed and focused by an array of blackholes.

come at me. this is Xeelee/Downstreamers level of warfare.

>>33220044
This is predicated on being able to radiate your heat in a narrow cone that your enemy has no assets in. This is a major efficiency drain from a heat-rejection standpoint and requires solid intel on your enemy's assets, which may not be practical given the presence of this hypothetical stealth.

File: 1193418778170.jpg (183KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1024x768px

>>33220319
oh well, to be honest I wasn't much convinced it would work myself

>>33220242
>0 Kelvin
Wrong
2.726 Kelvin at 4.005×10^−14 J/m^3

That is the temperature and power of the cosmic background radiation. And 10K is pretty damn close.

>>33220424
>cosmic background radiation
Jewish meme.
Literally just out radios and shit, get far enough away from our communication systems and it will magically vanish. Obviously untestable until we develop decent manned space travel but you'll all see.

>>33220319
Keep moving the goalposts, you haven't even checked what kind of telescopes you need to see a theoretical stealth ship with a given power and radiator temperature. All you've done is linked to precomputed bullshit about seeing 9000K exhaust at several gigawatts.

>>33220424

>And 10K is pretty damn close

But not close enough.

>>33220482
http://txchnologist.com/post/61492589701/did-you-know-we-can-still-spot-voyager-1

File: Bell3.jpg (110KB, 650x880px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 650x880px

>>33220211
>Die Glocke
Nazis in space confirmed

File: John Moses Browning.jpg (44KB, 640x909px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 640x909px

>>33219983

Mormon Space Bucks have a high conversion rate.

File: ISS radiators.jpg (90KB, 640x437px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 640x437px

>>33220126
I'm not talking about storing shit. I'm just talking about how thermal management on ACTUAL FUCKING SPACECRAFT (even those not designed for combat) works.

In there "Run Silent and Cold" section, which is the closest their inane discussion even gets to how actual spacecraft operate, they assert:
>The 285 Kelvin habitat module will stand out like a search-light against the three Kelvin background of outer space.
>T = surface temperature (Kelvin, room temperature is about 285-290 K)
They are assuming that the exterior surface of the spacecraft has to equal to the interior temperature, which isn't the case at all. If it WERE the case, with a thin sheetmetal hull and no insulation, heat would be lost very quickly and you would actually have to add large heaters to keep the interior warm.

But in REALITY (something these fucking nerds are painfully unaware of), thermal management on a spacecraft is achieved via extensive use of insulation and a thermostat-regulated radiator. The exterior surface of the spacecraft (with the exception of the radiator itself) is effectively independent of the interior temperature, and its temperature is dictated almost entirely by solar irradiation and albedo (as a grey-body, much akin to an asteroid). The radiator will be whatever temperature is required to reject whatever heat being generated internally - for big radiators like the Shuttle, this means colder than room temperature; for small ones like the ISS, it's warmer (and elevated via a refrigeration circuit).

In practice, sunlight dominates the thermal equation in space, whether it's a spacecraft or an asteroid or a piece of dead space junk. Internal heat is insignificant and isn't going to make a damned difference in the inner solar system.

>It's a stealth ship that got spotted against the background stars by our large telescope arrays since it took months to arrive at our planet with its shit ISP and TWR
>It doesn't even have a nuclear reactor to cut down on waste heat
>No reactor so no railguns, coilguns or gigawatt lasers. Only a few missiles with its TWR

>>33215681

Absolutely.

Until you fire a weapon, activate a drive or do anything that requires any energy-intensive process. Then you light up like a Christmas tree.

>>33215704
STOP SPREADING THIS MEME, GO BACK TO 1950.

File: Smoky_The_Nanobot.jpg (324KB, 640x438px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 640x438px

>>33220524
(10)^4/2.7^4 = 188 times the radiation emitted per square meter. Peak wavelength is 289.7µm.

Assuming a telescope with a Hubble Telescope resolution of 0.05 arcseconds (0.0000002radians). But how big a telescope that that need? 1.220* 289.7µm / 0.0000002rad = 1,767,170,000,000 km = 1.7*10^15m

Okay we know how big your telescope is, how does that pan out at a distance of, well lets go with a distance of 2*10^15m It is only slightly further than the diameter of your telescope.

At that distance a single pixel is 4*10^8m wide and covers an area of 1.6*10^17m2. Assuming our ship is 1000m2 in cross section we take up 6.2*10^-13% of that one pixel. We're 188 times brighter so we make the pixel 1.7*10^-10% brighter. Well below the signal to noise ratio.

In other words your telescope is the size of the solar system and cannot see my ship in it.

>>33219489
Hail, fellow /egg/head. How's the CLANG treating you today?

>>33220716
>Be asteroid
>Have zero ISP
>Have zero TWR
>Wander the solar system for literal eons undetected
>Come barreling straight for Earth
>Nobody notices until I'm already plowing my way through the atmosphere

>>33221046
Good, but that's only because I've burned out all the /egg/ games so I haven't really been meeting CLANG.

>>33221208
>Be asteroid
>Miss or burn up completely
Here's a far more likely scenario

>>33219824

Apparently it involves buttplugs too

>>33221251
You're missing the point. Detecting something a dozen meters across reflecting/radiating <1 MW of EMR in space is not easy, and is largely a matter of luck. And almost all known spacecraft-sized objects have been discovered during close flybys of (or in orbit around) Earth. You sure as shit won't be detecting anything months in advance.

And that's just for random spacecraft or small asteroids. Not even considering an object DESIGNED to minimize its signature.

>>33221780
but how do you get that rock to fly towards a planet/base/spy satellite?

>>33221780

It might very well be possible to hide a spacecraft for a limited period of time. But this quasi-stealth would require huge sacrifices in terms of other aspects of the design in order to obtain.

>>33215730
/thread

File: 1486940511109.png (533KB, 459x612px) Image search: [Google]

533KB, 459x612px

>>33215724
You can use heatsinks occluded by your ship senpai.

>>33220453
Is this nigger serious? This thread is giving me cancer. I love space, and engineering, so speculation about space combat is alot of fun.
Unless you can do some sort of energy shield magic, stealth in space is not "impossible" , but it would be so costly and hard you wouldn't be able to do much. And this goes without saying, only unmanned ships will be capable of being properly hidden. A laser would detect this, unless you somehow could make the skin of your ship either copy the light from every angle, a Harry Potter invisibility cloak status, it would be close to impossible to hide a ship in space if you have the tech to have a ship like what we are speculating.
Everybody here is treating technology as something static, and in 100 years, or 1000, do you really think that propulsion, detection, metallic coatings, telescopes, etc will be similar? It's like comparing a cloth torch to a maglight.
> Lol they both make light
> Lol I can still hit you with it
It's not the fucking same.

>>33221805
Exhaust plumes don't have to be hot or intense.

Cold exhaust has already been demonstrated in this thread >>33218843 at a respectable 5.42km/s. 309kg/s of atomic Hydrogen and Carbon gas at 10K.

Not invisible, but far from a bright flame.

File: 1473548948982.gif (2MB, 446x264px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 446x264px

>>33221954
If you really wanted, you could make a ship invisible in space to pretty much all kinds of probes. But as you said it would be impossibly expensive, and to what end? Spying? That can be done with drones. Attacking from stealth? At space distances the difference would be negligible.

Stealth is for smuggling and smuggling only, Space druglords will have stealth ships.

Stealth in space will definitely involve decoys, as actually staying off the radar would be impossible

>>33222064
Yea if they have the economies of several modern Earth's at their disposal.
That still makes no sense. By prohibitively expensive, I mean you would need to cover so many possibilities for detection, even then getting close to a star or moving Infront of a cosmic phenomenon could blow your cover. Remember, we are assuming that the tech is there for starships, and if that tech is there then there is more tech that counters any thing we can think of. It's like asking a knight what he thinks of modern armor resistance to EFPs.
Basically, it would be fucking magic to us

File: 1432361237619.jpg (169KB, 1073x745px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1073x745px

>>33222174
In any case, if we'd ever have any sense to fight a war in space, it would most likely mean that we've expanded past SOL, and for that we would have had to develop some sort of warp drive, and depending how it would work, that could mask your presence or you would arrive so suddenly that you would have the element of surprise.

>>33222000
check'ed
Also I don't think CHODE is physically accurate which doesn't mean that that type of engine is imposible just that I wouldn't trust a videogame

>>33222242
This is coming down to
> My bazooka army man beats those two guys
> Nuhhh uhhhh they have sandbags!

But you bring up a valid point. War in space might not even exist.
Could be too costly.
FTL is a dream boi. So far science has said nope. Unless something changes we are stuck here in SOL,

>>33216895
What did he mean by this.

>>33215681
>Will space warfare involve stealth
Yeah but it's really hard to hide mass which can be detected by gravimeters. Which only get more accurate in zero gravity.

>>33222441
what if you farm the anti-matter captured by the sun's magnetic fields and use it to produce antigravitons? with enough anti-matter you could even create a gravity furnance and produce antigravitons in a lab

File: 1473548350688.jpg (758KB, 3000x2272px) Image search: [Google]

758KB, 3000x2272px

>>33222289
We have multiple theories on how to cheat in space travel.

Thing is that all the theories I can remember the top of my head require obscene amounts of energy, and even if we could generate that sort of energy, I feel like doing a wormhole or bending the space around the ship could have some effect on nearby celestial bodies or other ships etc.

>>33221805
That factor is a bit trickier. But even still, conventional propulsion involves burns that are mere minutes long, so if they don't have their instruments focused in the right place at the right time they could easily miss it. By quite a lot if the trajectory involves any deep-space maneuvers, chaotic gravity assists or low-energy transfers.

>>33221833
Try to pay attention. Most of my discussion revolves around how hard it is to detect a spacecraft (or spacecraft-sized object) that isn't even *trying* to hide at all.

>But this quasi-stealth would require huge sacrifices in terms of other aspects of the design in order to obtain.
The single biggest thing you could do is minimize the amount of sunlight absorbed/reflected by the craft. I don't see how that really requires THAT much sacrifice beyond limiting the extent of solar power available.

>>33222515
Redpill me on antigravitons.

>>33222441
>what if you farm the anti-matter captured by the sun's magnetic fields and use it to produce antigravitons?
I don't even know or understand half the nouns in that question but if someone or thing is capable that I don't think they'd be even slightly concerned about some pissant subFTL species fucking their shit up.

>>33222651
lol ment for
>>33222515

>>33222651
They're talking about bullshit fiction.

It is only slightly less silly than the Skylark in Space's little tractor beam compasses.

>>33222680
>>33222623
ok have you heard of the higgs boson? matter and anti matter have an opposite effect in the higgs fields that interlaces the higgs bosons, if the boson spin clockwise (the higgs fields is 4d so is not really clockwise but close enough) it generates positive gravity the normal kind, but if the boson spins counter clockwise it generates negative gravity, the thing is that the spins cancel each other, that is why you need a huge magnetic filed like the sun's, that magnetic field thanks to its quantum vibration will generate anti-matter which in turn will secure that the majority of the bosons will spin counter clockwise negating the effect of the positive ones, if you can collect enough of those bosons, around 1.5GeV of them per Kg of mass you can cancel the gravitational pull of each other

>>33215776
something like knight of sidonia where your ship is covered in Ice to absorb blasts, which will freeze again by itself at the same time blocking harmful radiation

File: fucking ayys.png (612KB, 450x489px) Image search: [Google]

612KB, 450x489px

>>33215681
Bored with spaceship threads. Done to death. Honestly I'm more interested in what war in boarding actions and on other planets would be like.

Micrometeroid protection gives you a ballistic battledress. Guns adapted for vacuum - chrome for sun heating and no considerations for ballistic only terminal effects. Dealing with the fact that infantry can fire over the horizon on the Moon.

Cool shit.

>>33215681
> Everything valuable in space is on planets or on asteroids.
> No such thing as the orbital high ground. Even on Earth ASATs exist.
> Being on a planet means having a rock shield fuckhuge thick. Valuable asteroids are solid metal.

Why do we need war ships again?

>>33224456
> Everything valuable in space is on planets or on asteroids.

But how do you transport those valuable things to sell, Anon?

And what protects them from theft on the journey?

>>33223949
It would just be hordes of kill bots desu senpai.

File: me_normandy1.jpg (568KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

568KB, 1920x1080px

>>33215755
In the game Mass Effect the stealth ship Normandy has heat sinks that collect all the heat and store it internally. This lets is remain cool on the outside and not have a heat signature. But it can't do it for very long and must eventually dump the built up heat.

I always thought that was an interesting concept.

>>33215772
Are you retarded ? Enemy spaceships will be more than 250nm away good luck getting accurate detections at ranges hundreds of thousands of miles away,
If you do detect an enemy in space you'll be firing off torpedos then be waiting for a few hours for them to receive it and it's highly unlikely you'll ever actually get in range to see them

File: image.jpg (22KB, 512x288px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 512x288px

>>33215681
MCRN don't need your faggy stealth tech >>33219081
Read the books they are amazing the battle of the Donny was more interesting in the leviathan wakes book

>>33221015
Single telescopes are inefficient. That is why we build arrays.

The VLA would have to be the size of Hong Kong if it was one telescope. Instead it has a collection area 0.001% of the size spread over a much smaller area.

If we had casual space travel, theres no reason not to build arrays in space. Or to not have multiple ships all collating data.

I'm all for actual math in the argument, but you can't assume best case for you and impossibly worst case for the opposition.

>>33216877

But who gets Stargate Earth style ships?

>>33223949

I think it might be more along the lines of people in space suits carrying around backpacks full of smart micro missiles, kind of like the mini-drones from SGA

>>33225062
Where do they get the resupply from though? Complicated weapons require complicated fabrication. Assuming we're still not fractional c, logistics is still a bitch.

Using even current tech, guns and bullets can be built inside a pretty small space if you input the right materials. Less so for the really dense transistor sets, diverse sensor types and communication hardware you'll be using disposably in every engagement.

>>33221780
>Detecting something a dozen meters across reflecting/radiating <1 MW of EMR in space is not easy, and is largely a matter of luck.
>We can detect something radiating 22W of EMR thats only a few meters wide and is outside our solar system with ground based sensors right now

>>33220562

>>33218353
Enemy heat sensors rekt

File: wrong.gif (1MB, 480x287px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x287px

>>33224966
>Single telescopes are inefficient. That is why we build arrays.
Not true at all. Large single antennas are UNWIELDY, but not inefficient. Arrays are a good way of improving resolution, but not power/sensitivity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinned-array_curse

>>33221954

Study optics more mate. Metamaterials and plasmonics have already been demonstrated to refract microwaves around a circular object in more or less 2D, (compared to microwave wavelengths). Bending ir-uv-vis around a ship is just a matter of miniaturization of the materials and spherical geometry.

Bone up on negative index materials. Stealth in space is totally possible, especially so if an unmanned ship is putting off blackbody radiation that's indinstinguishable from cosmic noise.

>>33220842
REEEEEEEE WHY ISN'T REAL LIFE LIKE MY ANIMES

>>33225343
>haha lol let's just hide 40 lightyears away
>no one will ever find us xD
nice """""stealth""""", dickhead

>>33215736
Even that won't work, just heating the interior enough so the crew doesn't die from hypothermia will give you away, hell even computers stop working when they get too cold so even making an unmanned design doesn't really fix that problem. There's just no stealth in space, just varying degrees of detectability.

>>33225323
There are different meanings to efficiency my friend. You (or at least the Anon I responded to) were talking about building a telescope of a ridiculous size.

Obviously the material can't feasibly be collected for that. Its more material and space efficient to build an array.

And the problem is resolution, not power.

>>33225416

I really don't think you understood a single thing I said.

Read, you stupid kiddo. Wikipedia is a good entry point.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmonic_metamaterial

>>33225458

Semiconductors work better in the cold, we just design them to work around room temperature because we don't want to freeze to death when we use them.

File: rocinante13.jpg (63KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 800x450px

>>33218123

>>33225581
Expanse maz material

>>33225458

How much blackbody radiation would a 1 million meter^3 sphere with an average temperature of 150K really give off? Anybody done the math on that? The majority would be in the long IR/microwave spectrum I'm betting, and not very intense at all. That's assumming that you can't figure out a way to radiate in specific lambas to disguise yourself as noise. I don't think that's super impractical either, but I don't know much about thermodynamics.

>>33225502
Yeah no, have you heard about the freeze-out zone, where free carriers (electrons and holes) are pretty much inexistant?
Space electronics need very high concentrations of doping atoms, so much we call them degenerate semiconductors.

>>33225875

No, I haven't. What temperature range is that at?

>>33225896
>>33225875

But yeah, the extra doping for cold temperature to increase carriers in the cold is what I was referring to. Decreased temp and the presence of degenerate energy bands increases carrier mobility though, does it not?

>>33225816
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
Hop to it. The math isn't THAT hard.
>>33225458
>Even that won't work, just heating the interior enough so the crew doesn't die from hypothermia will give you away
Hey dipshit, ever heard of insulation?

>>33225896
He didn't answer but it depends on the semiconductor. Carrier density changes WRT to temperature. Lightly doped conductors at relatively higher temperatures, high doped conductors at lower. A degenerate semiconductor (very highly doped) acts almost like a metal and doesn't have a freeze out temperature but you also sacrifice a shit ton of its performance as a semiconductor.

>>33226015
Heats still got to go somewhere mate. If it contained all their heat, they'd get hyperthermia and die. And insulation slows transfer, it doesn't prevent it. Hell, there's no better true insulator than vacuum, and you can still see heat in space.

>>33215681
Easiest way: black paint, no running lights. Get to a decent speed and kill the engines. You'll coast through space never losing velocity and will only be picked up by sonar or radar. But: how are they to target you?

>>33226054
Read the thread man. Don't be an idiot.

>>33218445
source?

>>33215681
Yes and no. The "no stealth in space" bandwagon is true in saying that you will indeed see pretty much everything of significance in space. Sure you could use Misty shields >>33219824 for example to hide your signature from certain directions, but the second you maneuver with the energies required for significant orbital change you will be seen at extreme ranges.

However that doesn't mean your ennemy will know exactly what he sees, if what he sees is important or not among dozens of decoy maneuvers performed by other ships, among civilian and thrid party traffic that you may or may not have the resolution to discriminate, or have the resolution to infer good enough information on your exact velocity and direction, nor the 360° coverage to survey you 24/24 and not risk to miss a maneuver before you hide behind your Misty shield again, nor what exactly you hide under your armor, or when you wil perform correction maneuvers. There will still be a good amount of incertainties, so not as much stealth than fog of war, maybe. You will see everything yet not know everything and there will still be a place for trickery and obfuscation, though such things will be played weeks in advance, at gigantic ranges, rather than mere days and hours like in modern warfare. Days and hours will be "dogfight" of that era.

>>33220066
>these spergs don't even understand what insulation is and you expect me to take them seriously?

You sir, are an idiot.

>>33225581
why does that fueler have guns ?

>>33216069
Fuck, what is CHoDE?
It sounds autistic enough to be fun.

>>33226477
http://store.steampowered.com/app/476530/
https://childrenofadeadearth.wordpress.com/

>>33215681
No.

Against the background of space any ship capable of sustaining life with have a heat signature that stands out like a sore thumb.

>>33215776
Cigars with guns, solar panels, and missile launchers attached.

>>33226050
>Heats still got to go somewhere mate.
And it does (usually through a radiator). But insulation at least avoids the need to generate mountains of EXTRA heat to keep the spacecraft warm. In practice, internally-produced heat has very little effect on the external signature of a non-thrusting spacecraft, and the overall energy balance equation is overwhelmingly dominated by sunlight (same as every other yet-undiscovered space rock orbiting the sun). See [>>33220631].

File: spacesad.jpg (49KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 640x480px

>>33226477
children of a dead earth on steam

>>33215755
Can't you just convert the heat back into energy?

>>33215785
Why not use mirrors?

>>33226515
I doubt that. Space is big. Lots of distance. You can't see a candle from a million miles away.

>>33226443
Because the maskirovka, sir.

>>33226594
like in a perpetual drive that is not a behemoth machine?
damn, I am such a idiot for not thinking about that

>>33226054
>But: how are they to target you?
Space is full of light. Just because our eyes can't see it does not mean it's not there. When you look at a cloudless sky w/ NVGs and see a solid sheet of stars, which is the milky way. Thats with the autoadjustment and atmosphere blocking out most of the light. In space with good cmos cameras it'd be easy to see a black painted ship against that backdrop. Like an fat ant walking across a white ceiling.

>>33226638

Heat is energy. If we just convert it back into electricity, we could make rail guns that power themselves.

>>33226677
We can, the problem is that thermoelectric generators are limited by physics. Find a way to disperse the heat and deal with the resistance issues.. well maybe it might work.

Thoughts about casaba howitzers and bomb pumped lasers?

File: Infinite_Power!.jpg (150KB, 550x407px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 550x407px

>>33226594
>>33226677
genious

>>33221954
>Unless you can do some sort of energy shield magic, stealth in space is not "impossible" , but it would be so costly and hard you wouldn't be able to do much
https://fas.org/spp/military/program/track/stealth.pdf

>>33221015
>Telescope diameter is 1767.17m or 1.7 km.
The rest is correct

File: IMG_3901.jpg (139KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1920x1080px

>>33215776
I hope ships in the future look aesthetic as the Covenant's navy, they're so curvy.

>>33226904
technical details are limited and/or classified.

so realistically there is no way of knowing if they actually work or what kind of performance could be expected.

>>33215735

why bother when you can build nuclear lasers (as in, a directed nuclear weapon) which can melt holes in the enemy as soon as they come into range

>>33226981
>shoot <1s niggawatt laser
>it only ablates less than a mm of armor
>ship is fine because the heat couldn't penetrate any deeper
lasers are shit

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120009369.pdf
>laser broomsticks

Kessler Syndrome fags BTFO

>>33227052

lasers also have unparalleled range, a shot from mars would only take eight minutes to reach a target in orbit around earth. And if you're building a spaceship (likely powered by something ridiculous like an orion drive or nuclear saltwater rocket), building fuckhuge lasers is not difficult

>>33227260
https://childrenofadeadearth.wordpress.com/2016/07/02/the-photon-lance/

Diffraction bro. Lasers have limited range of less than a lightsecond and probably much shorter than that.

>>33227345

>what is frequency modulation

>>33227371
Wouldn't help. photons seem to naturally repel one another and even just shooting for the apollo retroreflectors we end up hitting something like a square mile of lunar real estate.

>>33224687

The first Mass Effect actually kinda did their homework on this subject, and it shows. If you go down to the engineering room in the first mass effect, you can talk to the engineer who explains how the stealth system works. It works in the manner that you described, but also requires usage of "Element Zero" which is a fictional substance. So in order words, it is essentially acknowledged in game that the system wouldn't work without completely fictional technology. I appreciated that.

>>33215681
just paint the ship black

>>33227521
why they did that

>>33226241
https://zillo7.itch.io/tier-1

File: Caldari_Destroyer.jpg (217KB, 1437x811px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 1437x811px

>>33219988
>88
I think you've answered yourself.

File: 1322615842122.jpg (17KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 400x400px

How can you paint the outside of a ship with paint in space, if there is no gravity.

>>33222243
The entire point of CHoDE was making a video game solely with the known physics equations for everything involved. That's like saying you don't trust a flight simulator.

The only fuckery afoot in CHoDE is the approximation equations for linear accelerators, which was fixed recently to a decent degree. That, and the ever-pesky n-body problem.

It's a fuck ton better than trying to argue using a CMANO simulation.

>>33219006
>the space equivalent of stealth is to fly through solar flares that hide your heat emitions.
>some ships even come with smoke boms that create a small plasma storm.
>the really daring use insulated frigates with massive heat sinks and just sling shot towards their targets
I could see this happening

File: Nuclear launch.webm (1MB, 888x500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 888x500px

>>33227905
Because Mars needs to fuck off.

>>33228237
Aw yes! The only ship in EVE that doesn't look like shit.

>>33228507
The the UN launch all of Terras nukes?
>12,000 nukes inbound.
>MARS STRONK!
>nukes hit.
>p-ppPlease stop.

File: nuke torpedo.webm (2MB, 720x404px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 720x404px

>>33228528
They only launched like half.

>>33225477
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmonic_metamaterial
But can you make a material that doesn't emit black body radiation?

File: 1255175624111.jpg (231KB, 1280x642px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1280x642px

>>33228507
explain

>>33219160

>Stealth is 100% impossible in space

Since windows on most ships would be weak points for armor and protection against radiation, as long as you hide all traces of heat in your ship, you should be fine, literally like other anon said and proved to you.

File: Space Race.webm (2MB, 888x500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 888x500px

>>33230391
Mars gets uppity. Earth responds.

>>33228528
>>33228595
why would they be using nukes at all when they have magic space drives
this is why these stupid sci-fi shit is so bad, you have infinite sources of power in magic space drives that could destroy a whole fucking planet

>>33226537
Thats only true because noone has built any large nuclear power plants in space
And we're pretty close to the sun on the Earth

this thread is very triggering for someone with any education

>>33230550

>as long as you hide all traces of heat in your ship

Except that's thermo-dynamically impossible. Any type of ship (doesn't matter whether it is manned or unmanned) is going to have heat emissions.

>>33230822
so? the outside temperature of the ship is not related to the inside temperature, just have radiative surfaces facing away from where prying eyes to dissipate internal heat.
additionally, low temperature and small emitters do not radiate a lot of energy, and thus detecting this relatively small number of photons is not a trivial task.

File: bsg adama.png (526KB, 1000x580px) Image search: [Google]

526KB, 1000x580px

>>33216877
Who gets the Battlestars?

File: Battlestars vs Basestars.webm (2MB, 624x352px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 624x352px

BSG and Halo have some of the best designs for ships.

File: nxcvdsef.jpg (30KB, 412x413px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 412x413px

>>33230788
yeah, Im pretty sure that was OP intent

>>33230844

>just have radiative surfaces facing away from where prying eyes to dissipate internal heat.

This assumes that:

1. You know exactly where the enemy is so that you can angle your emissions in the opposite direct.

2. You only have a single opposing ship. If the enemy has multiple ships then you won't be able to angle your emissions away from one without bringing them into view of another unless they are in the exact same place.

3. Your ship has large enough radiators that it can afford to shut off all the radiators on one side of the ship at the same time.

4. The enemy won't see whatever maneuvers you pull in order to angle your ship in the first place

>>33231357
>shaky cam
>missing shots at 500 yards
>point blank brawling in space
slit my throat

>>33231500
1) you know where the enemy isn't. it's the direction you came from, which is good enough.
2) that's nonsense, you can have the radiators be close to the ship and parallel to it's side, so much of the radiation is reflected in an a relatively small swath, hemispheric coverage
3) see above
4) even more nonsense. if the enemy has seen you, no amount of stealth terrestrial or extra can make them unsee you.
>reddiot formatting

>>33231593

>if the enemy has seen you, no amount of stealth terrestrial or extra can make them unsee you

Exactly. So whatever maneuvers you pull in order to angle the radiators away from the enemies view will let the enemy know where you are, and you're going based on your mass, velocity, and last known direction. Also, you didn't really address the issue of multiple opponents. Unless everybody in the opposing fleet is looking from the exact same direction, it won't be possible to angle the radiators in such a way that they aren't visible to somebody.

>>33215681

Imagine you're out in the middle of an empty field. It's 30 minutes past midnight. It's completely pitch black outside, in other words. Now imagine that somebody out in that empty field lights a match. Because of how dark it is outside, that match will be visible from a very long distance away, even though it isn't very big. The same applies to theoretical space warfare. Because space is so dark and empty, any emissions are going to stick out like a sore thumb. You can't really hide, because there is no horizon.

>>33231665
space is vast and very dark, it's very difficult to get direct observations for cold bodies.
you're assuming it's easy, which is foolish.

>>33231768
>Because space is so dark and empty, any emissions are going to stick out like a sore thumb.

You would be really, really surprised by how "loud" space really is.

>>33231786

>very difficult to get direct observations for cold bodies.

A spacecraft isn't a cold body.

>>33231841
it is if you don't have LoS on the radiators or engines

>>33231809

You realize that we are still able to detect Voyager 1, a tiny object compared to what a full-blown spacecraft would be like, outside the solar system, with current technology? And it isn't even very hard to do.

>>33231875
Voyager 1 is also SUPPOSED to be detected, and is 40 years old. It's still transmitting for now, but rather soon all of it's instruments will be turned off and it will be, for all intents and purposes, a floating chunk of metal.

>>33231875
>>33231893
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/nasa-scientists-answer-your-burning-questions-about-voyager-1
>Once the Voyagers run out of power and stop transmitting, will we still be able to detect them?
>Afraid not. No signal from the spacecraft really means no signal.

>>33231854

>it is if you don't have LoS on the radiators or engines

But you would. There is no horizon in space. And even if you turned off the engines completely, the other systems in the spacecraft will still generate heat unless it completely shuts down, which it obviously can't do in combat.

>>33231906

So you're saying that Voyager 1 will be undetectable once it completely shuts down? That's probably true, but largely irrelevant. A spacecraft in combat cannot shut down like that.

>>33231906
>You'll need to generate less than 40W and be outside the solar system to be undetectable

>>33230665
>Thats only true because noone has built any large nuclear power plants in space
It would still continue to be true for all the spacecraft that DON'T have pointlessly oversized power supplies, though. Stealth doesn't STOP being possible for other smaller spacecraft just because you build some retardedly huge overpriced shitpile that can't be concealed.

>>33231875
>>33231939
>>33231913
>there are people this obtuse

>>33231930
>>33231913
a small amount of heat is not the same as active directional broadcast when they ALSO know the exact direction to point their large powerful telescopes

>>33231930
The Voyager is TRYING to be detected. That's literally the sole purpose of the instruments it still has activated.

>>33231930
>A spacecraft in combat cannot shut down like that.
Are you seriously fucking suggesting that a military spacecraft is incapable of radio silence?

>>33231957

Smaller spacecraft are still going to need engines, and those engines will produce a visible signature. Just being small doesn't guarantee stealth.

>>33231993

So this spacecraft is just going to sit in the middle of nowhere during a fight? What's the point of even having a weaponized spacecraft if you're just going to turn it off when the shooting starts?

>>33219356
I like how no one has pointed out this resistojet still requires 1MW power.

>>33232034
The last time stealth was wholly relied upon for both defense and offence, the aircraft was shot down by a 40 year old Soviet SAM when it's stealth was breached.

Stealth will likely be the same as it is right now, used as a support or as a way to destroy the enemy before they can even see you.

>>33232034
Radio silence =/= shutting down everything (though full hibernation would also be a viable tactic during transit for conserving power and minimizing signature, especially enroute to a known target like a planet or moon).
>during a fight?
You seem to be implying combat will be mutual. That's highly unlikely due to constraints of orbital mechanics alone, nevermind the possibility of stealth and surprise attacks.

>>33232080
1MW is practically nothing as far as propulsion goes.

>>33232194
Depending on your efficiency you'll still be producing a few MW of waste heat which you need to hide now.

>>33230550
>Since windows on most ships would be weak points for armor and protection against radiation

Have you ever head of a camera?

>>33232265
For a few minutes.
And as long as you're thrusting you can dump heat into the propellant. No need to radiate it directly. Not that it's even that necessary unless you're thrusting in an area of intense scrutiny.

>>33233482
That 10K exhaust is assuming you aren't dumping heat from the rest of your ship through your propellant.

>>33233482
Also >for a few minutes
More like hours if you plan to get anywhere with that twr and meaningful payload.

>>33233611
So increase the expansion ratio to compensate.

Heat can be dumped into fuel and the expansion of the nozzle will cool the exhaust according to its design.

>>33228479
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLqFjv_no7I

Skip to 13 minutes

>>33233711
Your already terrible TMR gets worse and worse the more you do that.

>>33231958
About 80% of people are obtuse.

You'd think it was less but that's only because sometimes these obtuse people give you the benefit of the doubt because they trust you.

File: 20170307210327_1.jpg (204KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1600x900px

>>33232080
I made it 1MW to make it interesting. To show you can hide a lots of power with only a tiny engine and a propellant rate.

Here is 100W with 67g all aluminum construction.

I can get 5kms at 66g and 27K exhaust.

>>33233894
It's a completely useless engine you got there. Resistojet stealth engines are utter shit tier and whatever stealth advantage you get is offset by your inability to do anything.

File: 20170307211301_1.jpg (213KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1600x900px

>>33233758
bro I would make a better engine but my expansion ratio is limited to 1000 in CHODE.

I could actually get better numbers than >>33233894
if I used a material with a higher heat tolerance.

20K exhaust in pic related. 12.7km/s is nothing to sneeze at.

>>33233919
I'm using resistojets as a stand-in for a thermal system. The heat could come from anywhere.

>>33234015
So now you're back to not having a stealth engine to hide your burns and a stealth cooling device that requires a limited amount of hydrogen.

>>33234061
I am just trying to show you that rocket nozzles can cool exhaust. The game/simulator is limiting my expansion ratio so I cannot show you a 3K exhaust hydrogen thruster that has 9km/s.

Just understand that rocket exhaust does not need to be hot. Ion drive exhaust is not hot either.

>>33234083
You still have a fuck long nozzle that's hot for most of its length.

>>33234083
>Ultra long 0.1mm thick chamber walls
>Slight rotation
>The whole thing breaks

>>33234147
The heat doesn't need to leave the nozzle and any use of regenerative cooling would correct that.

Also the nozzle is made long as fuck to reduce the angles in which you can stare up its chamber. You could make it wider and shorter without performance loss.

Plus the whole part where it weighs less than a kilogram.

>>33234192
Everyone can still detect the glowing hot nozzle. This is effectively just a radiator that uses coolant.

File: 20170307213300_1.jpg (223KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1600x900px

>>33234179
nigga you happy?

>>33234192
>Plus the whole part where it weighs less than a kilogram.
Doesn't mean anything. If you have a large area you need more coolant anyway so you'll need a ton of these resistojet radiators that use a limited amount of coolant.