Thread: The Most Maneuverable Spaceship Shape?

What is it?

Assuming you used real technology?

Like CMG's and thrusters?

I know with CMG's, the bigger they are, the better turning you get from them.

So I would assume the best maneuvering spaceship would have at least one big whopping CMG on it, with thrusters ports at critical areas.

The Most Maneuverable Spaceship Shape?

A sphere with reaction engines at the ends of arms that stick out from the main body. Minimum rotational inertia, maximum torque. Think ascent stage of the LEM but more spherical, with mass as close to the center as possible.

So I would assume the best maneuvering spaceship would have at least one big whopping CMG on it,

That would only work in one axis - and would then present some serious maneuverability problems if you spun it up and tried to turn in a different axis.

At velocities of space combat the shape of the ship probably wouldn't matter at all for turning. You'd be limited from changing your velocity to a couple G's anyhow or smash up the crew.

It would matter for rotating to face towards the enemy craft as you pass another, where you'd want most of the mass near the center and rotation trust as far from the center as practical.

Probly this Soyuz TMA-7

From Star Trek to Star Wars we have concepts of the dog fight. It's a complete none accentual. We can and have well noted the shape of the ship maters not at all in the vacuums of space away from strong gravity forces. Inertia and sudden changes of heading are a real killer in a velocity envelope imagined as extreme. Firing laser canons at light year distances and velocities we can only guess about. Science fiction is still science fiction. Rules of science and physics do not apply., or need not to. The vessel with least mass is the better able to change direction of heading. A method of cheating reality would be handy. The amount of energy required to change heading is nearly as important as near to light speed velocities. Finding a cheat code would be a advantage..

I don't remember any TV depiction that comes close to being realistic.

There are a few sci-fi books that get it mostly right...with concepts like ships detecting and firing shots (guided missiles) at long range while passing knowing that it will take hours or days or weeks before they can intersect again.

Enders Game movie at least showed thrusters on spaceships, even though they flew like planes.

Technically could fly like a plane in space, provided you had enough thrusters firing in the desired areas.

No human would fly inside, it would be a drone, and you would use up so much fuel in the maneuver that you would need a torch ship (insanely powerful, long lasting fuel, without the size issue).

So like said earlier, you really need to skirt physics a bit, to make it interesting.

Realistic combat does not look pretty on the big screen. Unless you wanna get up close and gruesome. In which case you get an R rating at the movies.

dog fights will be important? Most likely in space, military ships will not permit enemy units to get very close. Rather keep them at considerable distance, sending each other nukes and neutron bombs. No environment to pollute in open space. If fighters approach, you just nuke them. Why use conventional weapons in space instaid of nukes? Windows would be almost useless since the enemy will be at considerable distance to avoid your nukes. The space ships will probably not require fast maneuverability like fighters. They will be fragile flying bricks filled with nukes.


I would say, it would be a bit like submarines warfare. Instaid of the difficulty of the water, there is the difficulty of the distance. Trying to avoid the enemies nukes instaid of torpedoes and dept charges. Probably more or less blindly, to avoid giving away your position. Using stealth technics. Lasers for communication etc. Hmm is that an asteroid or a disguised nuke? Maybe using thrusters optimizing stealth instaid of acceleration. To stay hidden is the best counter measure against nukes that don't need to be very precise.

In such a scenario, nukes would be mass produced. So the costs aren't comparable to todays nukes, even if basically nothing changes in the technology.

If the technology involves relativistic speeds. Then fights could even last years at relativistic speeds

Originally Posted by Quantum immortal

The space ships will probably not require fast maneuverability like fighters.

Barring some major and radical breakthrough in propulsion ships will not be able to have "fast manoeuvrability", regardless of requirements.

I would say, it would be a bit like submarines warfare. Instaid of the difficulty of the water, there is the difficulty of the distance. Trying to avoid the enemies nukes instaid of torpedoes and dept charges. Probably more or less blindly, to avoid giving away your position. Using stealth technics. Lasers for communication etc. Hmm is that an asteroid or a disguised nuke?

Yeah.
In space everyone can see you coming.
Current technology is capable of picking up the thermal signature of the shuttle at a range (from memory) somewhere around the orbit of Pluto.
You can't hide.

To stay hidden is the best counter measure against nukes that don't need to be very precise.

Nukes don't need to be "precise" because...?
It depends on what you mean by "precision".

The Heart Of Gold spaceship would be a good design.

I vote for Space Battleship Yamato:

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Yeah.
In space everyone can see you coming.
Current technology is capable of picking up the thermal signature of the shuttle at a range (from memory) somewhere around the orbit of Pluto.
You can't hide.

If you really can't hide at the orbit of pluto. It would mean that nukes render war in space as meaningless as a nuclear war on earth. The two sides simply annihilate each other. There is no reason to avoid using nukes in space, the same way we avoid using them on earth. I mean military targets, not civilians.

If your position is easily detected and the missiles are smart enough to adjust there trajectory. How are you going to avoid them?

What about stealth? You could adjust surface temperature with ... a reserve of liquid nitrogen. Or adjusting the size and direction of the radiators. Is that an asteroid or a ship?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Nukes don't need to be "precise" because...?
It depends on what you mean by "precision".

Its easier to hit a distant target?
And the target stays at a distance because he knows you have nukes.

Originally Posted by Quantum immortal

What about stealth? You could adjust surface temperature with ... a reserve of liquid nitrogen. Or adjusting the size and direction of the radiators. Is that an asteroid or a ship?

You still have to dump heat somewhere.
You'd need a very large ship to be able to direct all of the dumped heat behind itself ¹ and that still wouldn't stop the "plume" expanding.

Its easier to hit a distant target?

In general it's always easier to hit a closer target.
But what I was getting at is that, in space, there's no atmosphere to propagate a blast: that means that the effects of a nuke are somewhat localised.


1 Plus there's the small problem that, in order to dump heat in the opposite direction to whoever is looking for you you'd have to know where they are.

We are applying REAL physics to science fiction. Ships can do whatever you want.

By sticking to real physics, space combat becomes a foolish propostion. The very fact that you're limited to light speed sensors means that you won't even know where your enemy's ship is in realtime, if they are far enough away. Granted, you could do calculations, predictions on what you THINK they will do.

But suffice to say, combat would be more of a mathmaticians game than a trigger happy button pusher. Shots would be precise and precalculated, no shooting spam just because you can. Because of the distances involved, even missiles are a waste.

The fuel required, if using real physics, scales up with distance. And missiles make course corrections don't they? That also requires fuel.

At long range, missiles are absolutely useless, since they will run out of fuel from course corrections long before they reach their target. Missiles are only good at short range. This is space combat, not Earth combat.

The only weapon they could work at long range is lasers. And those require a lot of power, which you can have by scaling up the size of your ship, as well as the size of your laser cannon, and radiators.

So ultimately you have an epic huge glass cannon (warship easily damaged by enemy fire) that is combat worthy at long range, but you dare not get it close to danger, since it would get wrecked, and you don't want to waste all your money.

All this is what you get if you stick closely to real physics. If you wanna branch out, you have to make stuff up. Anything else?

Combat would logically be focused on points o interest, like habital planets, or other areas that people care about.

Planet defenses would consist of laser cannon warships for long range attacks. Even then it would be a numbers game. Chances are HIGH that the invaders would ONLY attack a planet if it had LESS laser cannons in orbit than they had laser cannon warships.

Anything else is just silly, and the fleet would die at long range from laser spam. So ultimately, the space race that conquers will be the one that has the best ability to produce laser cannon warships in great quantity.

Because whoever has the most laser cannons wins. Lasers will zap long before missiles hit.

On further consideration, a planet with laser defenses is almost inpregnable against a fleet.

The USA was researching bomb pumped lasers. The power of a laser is only limited by the source, so the idea was to explode a nuke, and fire a laser from it. Yes, they said it was possible.


It would be a one shot wonder, but orbiting satelites without big spaceship engines would be less expensive to make than a fleet.

Bomb pumped X-ray lasers are the only laser man knows of that could be a death ray at THOUSANDS of kilometers.

A ship with X-ray lasers, if going the real physics route, would need some major radiators. and it wouldn't bother attacking a planet with equivalent laser fire power.


Unless of course, it had a way to armor itself. Lasers protection either requires high tech stuff, to dissapate the energy or light, or stuff to absorb and dissipate it (both of which will run out eventually).


Really, the simplest, most cost effective way to go against a planet is an mega asteroid. A big one. Guide it with some engines and the lasers will have a hard time taking it down.

I see Lorbo is still posting drivel.

Originally Posted by lorbo

On further consideration, a planet with laser defenses is almost inpregnable against a fleet.

The USA was researching bomb pumped lasers. The power of a laser is only limited by the source, so the idea was to explode a nuke, and fire a laser from it. Yes, they said it was possible.


It would be a one shot wonder, but orbiting satelites without big spaceship engines would be less expensive to make than a fleet.

Bomb pumped X-ray lasers are the only laser man knows of that could be a death ray at THOUSANDS of kilometers.

A ship with X-ray lasers, if going the real physics route, would need some major radiators. and it wouldn't bother attacking a planet with equivalent laser fire power.


Unless of course, it had a way to armor itself. Lasers protection either requires high tech stuff, to dissapate the energy or light, or stuff to absorb and dissipate it (both of which will run out eventually).


Really, the simplest, most cost effective way to go against a planet is an mega asteroid. A big one. Guide it with some engines and the lasers will have a hard time taking it down.

If you could produce and point a gamma ray burst you would be the big kid on the playground. I believe asteroids to be the best form of transportation as we leave this galaxy. On the outskirts of our galaxy we could trade up to a full sized planet. If it does not equal the mass of Earth we could add to it until it does. Where you go would be more important than how fast you go. We would have to be much better at managing the population and resources.

Yep, size does matter. But incidentally, you need huge power reserves/power manipulation to pull off gamma ray laser cannons. And even more, likely to strap engines that can PUSH a planet, let alone the thermal weather control you would need to make it a proper spaceship.

Possible? Yes?

With our current technology. Double no.

But one day? Why not? Just scale up an engine to huge sizes and attach that thing and let it rip. I don't know where you will get the power or energy reserves, but if your managing to fire gamma ray bursts, then you probably already know how.

Gamma ray bursts come from exploding stars. So some type of way you have managed to harness that power, which is more than a enough to push a humble planet around.

Originally Posted by lorbo

We are applying REAL physics to science fiction. Ships can do whatever you want.

By sticking to real physics, space combat becomes a foolish propostion. The very fact that you're limited to light speed sensors means that you won't even know where your enemy's ship is in realtime, if they are far enough away. Granted, you could do calculations, predictions on what you THINK they will do.

But suffice to say, combat would be more of a mathmaticians game than a trigger happy button pusher. Shots would be precise and precalculated, no shooting spam just because you can. Because of the distances involved, even missiles are a waste.

The fuel required, if using real physics, scales up with distance. And missiles make course corrections don't they? That also requires fuel.

At long range, missiles are absolutely useless, since they will run out of fuel from course corrections long before they reach their target. Missiles are only good at short range. This is space combat, not Earth combat.

The only weapon they could work at long range is lasers. And those require a lot of power, which you can have by scaling up the size of your ship, as well as the size of your laser cannon, and radiators.

So ultimately you have an epic huge glass cannon (warship easily damaged by enemy fire) that is combat worthy at long range, but you dare not get it close to danger, since it would get wrecked, and you don't want to waste all your money.

All this is what you get if you stick closely to real physics. If you wanna branch out, you have to make stuff up. Anything else?

I think your thinking is completely wrong. Why would you ever make the assumptions about space ships maneuvering that you are making? The fact is a ship will not spend any more fuel than it has to, so there will not be any course corrections unless there is no choice.

Now if you have a ship or station just parked and watching. It would be very hard to detect, now suppose that station has a large kinetic weapon using a railgun like technology. It could fire that weapon without causing a detectable heat signature. Which means the target ship would have no reason to make any course corrections. With the computing power that should be available whenever this scenario might take place, they should be able to precisely put that projectile on target many days after firing.

Since the projectile will not be using any fuel it will remain undetectable, at least until it was to late to get out of the way.

Please note: I am in no way defending lorbo's idiocy ¹, but:

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Now if you have a ship or station just parked and watching. It would be very hard to detect

If there's any system aboard that produces power then they will produce heat. It will also pick up Solar heat: that will make it stick out like a sore thumb.

now suppose that station has a large kinetic weapon using a railgun like technology. It could fire that weapon without causing a detectable heat signature.

At the very least a railgun will produce a massive EM spike, and many current proposals/ protoypes work by vapourising a pusher "shoe" and turning it into (rather hot) plasma which then interacts with the magnetics in the railgun.

1 He persists in being wrong on so many points, from the basics upwar.. oh, my bad he doesn't get above a "knowledge" of the basics.

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Originally Posted by lorbo

We are applying REAL physics to science fiction. Ships can do whatever you want.

By sticking to real physics, space combat becomes a foolish propostion. The very fact that you're limited to light speed sensors means that you won't even know where your enemy's ship is in realtime, if they are far enough away. Granted, you could do calculations, predictions on what you THINK they will do.

But suffice to say, combat would be more of a mathmaticians game than a trigger happy button pusher. Shots would be precise and precalculated, no shooting spam just because you can. Because of the distances involved, even missiles are a waste.

The fuel required, if using real physics, scales up with distance. And missiles make course corrections don't they? That also requires fuel.

At long range, missiles are absolutely useless, since they will run out of fuel from course corrections long before they reach their target. Missiles are only good at short range. This is space combat, not Earth combat.

The only weapon they could work at long range is lasers. And those require a lot of power, which you can have by scaling up the size of your ship, as well as the size of your laser cannon, and radiators.

So ultimately you have an epic huge glass cannon (warship easily damaged by enemy fire) that is combat worthy at long range, but you dare not get it close to danger, since it would get wrecked, and you don't want to waste all your money.

All this is what you get if you stick closely to real physics. If you wanna branch out, you have to make stuff up. Anything else?

I think your thinking is completely wrong. Why would you ever make the assumptions about space ships maneuvering that you are making? The fact is a ship will not spend any more fuel than it has to, so there will not be any course corrections unless there is no choice.

Now if you have a ship or station just parked and watching. It would be very hard to detect, now suppose that station has a large kinetic weapon using a railgun like technology. It could fire that weapon without causing a detectable heat signature. Which means the target ship would have no reason to make any course corrections. With the computing power that should be available whenever this scenario might take place, they should be able to precisely put that projectile on target many days after firing.

Since the projectile will not be using any fuel it will remain undetectable, at least until it was to late to get out of the way.

Spaceships would actively dodge weapons fire so long they could detect it. As for railgun projectiles, even those could be detected via radar or even lidar. Both radar and Lidar work at light speed, so they should detect rail gun projectiles long before they arrive. I would expect a spaceship to be concerned about a fast moving object on a collision trajectory, even if they don't know what it is. You have to presume the other ship has computers that are at least as good as the attacker, if not better, and surely not much worse. Heat is not the only way to detect stuff in space, although it is one of the most obvious, easiest ways.

Originally Posted by lorbo

Yep, size does matter. But incidentally, you need huge power reserves/power manipulation to pull off gamma ray laser cannons. And even more, likely to strap engines that can PUSH a planet, let alone the thermal weather control you would need to make it a proper spaceship.

Possible? Yes?

With our current technology. Double no.

But one day? Why not? Just scale up an engine to huge sizes and attach that thing and let it rip. I don't know where you will get the power or energy reserves, but if your managing to fire gamma ray bursts, then you probably already know how.

Gamma ray bursts come from exploding stars. So some type of way you have managed to harness that power, which is more than a enough to push a humble planet around.

My problem with not taking an Earth like planet equivalent to its mass is Galaxies are independent entities in this universe. I don’t know if we could survive from one galaxy to the next if the mass equivalent of the galaxies is not the same as we travel in a small spaceship. Without the mass we were born in we might become a different species during the trip between galaxies which would be counterproductive. To keep the planet warm during the trip we would need a moon like satellite burning like our sun.

Originally Posted by lorbo

Spaceships would actively dodge weapons fire so long they could detect it. As for railgun projectiles, even those could be detected via radar or even lidar. Both radar and Lidar work at light speed, so they should detect rail gun projectiles long before they arrive. I would expect a spaceship to be concerned about a fast moving object on a collision trajectory, even if they don't know what it is. You have to presume the other ship has computers that are at least as good as the attacker, if not better, and surely not much worse. Heat is not the only way to detect stuff in space, although it is one of the most obvious, easiest ways.

The time it takes to detect a small dark object and determine that it's on a collision course with you, can be a big factor on your survival. The faster the projectile the less time you will have to get your ass out of the way.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Please note: I am in no way defending lorbo's idiocy ¹, but:

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Now if you have a ship or station just parked and watching. It would be very hard to detect

If there's any system aboard that produces power then they will produce heat. It will also pick up Solar heat: that will make it stick out like a sore thumb.

now suppose that station has a large kinetic weapon using a railgun like technology. It could fire that weapon without causing a detectable heat signature.

At the very least a railgun will produce a massive EM spike, and many current proposals/ protoypes work by vapourising a pusher "shoe" and turning it into (rather hot) plasma which then interacts with the magnetics in the railgun.

1 He persists in being wrong on so many points, from the basics upwar.. oh, my bad he doesn't get above a "knowledge" of the basics.

In the first place if there was a war going on in space, are we assuming it will not be going on back on Earth? But we are not on topic with the OP. Maneuverability in space will always be a problem, because it's fuel intensive and limited with the need to keep the humans alive. Small G forces tend to be hard on people.

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Originally Posted by lorbo

Spaceships would actively dodge weapons fire so long they could detect it. As for railgun projectiles, even those could be detected via radar or even lidar. Both radar and Lidar work at light speed, so they should detect rail gun projectiles long before they arrive. I would expect a spaceship to be concerned about a fast moving object on a collision trajectory, even if they don't know what it is. You have to presume the other ship has computers that are at least as good as the attacker, if not better, and surely not much worse. Heat is not the only way to detect stuff in space, although it is one of the most obvious, easiest ways.

The time it takes to detect a small dark object and determine that it's on a collision course with you, can be a big factor on your survival. The faster the projectile the less time you will have to get your ass out of the way.

Lightspeed sensors are still magnitudes higher in speed of detection, granting plenty of time to react. That's not even counting anti-missile countermeasures.

Like lasers, and if need be, shotgun blasts of flack, chunks of metal that will bang up whatever is coming to hit the ship anyway.

Speed is the only thing that has changed human combat. Fast weapons require good reaction time, fast sensors grant that, especially at long range.

At close range, we accept, a spaceship is doomed. At long range, they have a really good chance of escape. Lasers I will always view as the best weapon, since they are the fastest, and a laser's output is ONLY limited by the power source.

If you could harness it, you could power a laser with the power of a Nova. That would be epic.

Originally Posted by lorbo

Lightspeed sensors are still magnitudes higher in speed of detection, granting plenty of time to react. That's not even counting anti-missile countermeasures.

Like lasers, and if need be, shotgun blasts of flack, chunks of metal that will bang up whatever is coming to hit the ship anyway.

Speed is the only thing that has changed human combat. Fast weapons require good reaction time, fast sensors grant that, especially at long range.

At close range, we accept, a spaceship is doomed. At long range, they have a really good chance of escape. Lasers I will always view as the best weapon, since they are the fastest, and a laser's output is ONLY limited by the power source.

If you could harness it, you could power a laser with the power of a Nova. That would be epic.

I like a good laser myself, but I'm still having problems with the building of these space ships of war you want to talk about. They have to be big and they can't be built on Earth or even in Earth orbit without causing more problems than the builders could handle.

Can you even imagine the kind of resources it would take to build a ship like the Enterprise in Startrek or even one half that size? In any event it will be a project maybe 2 or 300 years in the future, and a lot can happen in that amount of time and most of it not good for the advancement of humans.

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Originally Posted by lorbo

Lightspeed sensors are still magnitudes higher in speed of detection, granting plenty of time to react. That's not even counting anti-missile countermeasures.

Like lasers, and if need be, shotgun blasts of flack, chunks of metal that will bang up whatever is coming to hit the ship anyway.

Speed is the only thing that has changed human combat. Fast weapons require good reaction time, fast sensors grant that, especially at long range.

At close range, we accept, a spaceship is doomed. At long range, they have a really good chance of escape. Lasers I will always view as the best weapon, since they are the fastest, and a laser's output is ONLY limited by the power source.

If you could harness it, you could power a laser with the power of a Nova. That would be epic.

I like a good laser myself, but I'm still having problems with the building of these space ships of war you want to talk about. They have to be big and they can't be built on Earth or even in Earth orbit without causing more problems than the builders could handle.

Can you even imagine the kind of resources it would take to build a ship like the Enterprise in Startrek or even one half that size? In any event it will be a project maybe 2 or 300 years in the future, and a lot can happen in that amount of time and most of it not good for the advancement of humans.

Yes, I'm fully aware of the ridiculous amount of resources it would take. That is why I keep this to fiction, while physically possible, it is not economically or socially possible based on real world settings. It's just a dream, which has at least SOME validity since it's technically possible. And where it isn't we just make up stuff as we have to, to make stories interesting, That's why I write fiction.