11-30-2010, 03:32 PM | #61 |
Wielder of Smart Pants
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
|
Re: [Spaceships] Under what tech assumptions Space Fighters make sense?
What THS calls a snark, actually. My point is that not having any life-support (not even a spacesuit) is an advantage.
|
12-01-2010, 11:04 PM | #62 | |
Join Date: Feb 2007
|
Re: [Spaceships] Under what tech assumptions Space Fighters make sense?
Quote:
The classic version, the STL manned short-range fighter carried aboard a larger ship, a space-going version of an aircraft carrier, almost never makes any sense under any remotely plausible tech assumptions. A possible limited exception would be fighters designed primarily for atmospheric work, launched from an orbiting platform and desending from and returning to it. But some of the other things we see 'space fighters' do in SF might make sense under some tech assumptions, if we define 'space fighter' as a 'small armed FTL starship with a crew of one'. For ex, if your FTL drive has a speed-to-mass ratio that makes a small ship a great deal faster than a big one, and the range of FTL sensing and communications is limited, then sending 'scouting missions' in little ships ahead of a large, slow vessel could make perfect sense, i.e. the old BSG classic model, where a Viper or 3 gets sent ahead of the Galactica to scout out the path ahead. Putting men aboard these small ships makes sense if there is no AI suitable for the task and the ships will be beyond comm range of the big vehicle for a while. Arming them also makes sense in a wartime situation. (Granted, a 'space dogfight' is still radically unlikely, but if the weapons on th small ship are of modest range (which is not improbable) then such a scouting mission could very well indulge in some modest-range combat if they encounter scouts from the other fleet). |
|
Tags |
fighters, spaceships |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|