Return to “Everything & Anything”

Post

Re: Before spaceships we need... rockets!

#421
Scytale wrote:
Cornflakes_91 wrote:The thing is: you cant hide in space, so there is no "send a sneaky small isnt sneaky, it shows up on thermal imaging devices like a torch.
Hmmmmm would it be possible to coat a small spacecraft with a ridiculously low-emissivity paint? It would have to be a very short term use because the ship would heat to untenable levels in no time. With a zero-emissivity coating, the detector-ship would need to look for occluded stars
Your drive, your life support, everything produces big heat emissions.
And everything above 4°K is visible from vast distances.

You could limit your exposure time by using your drives more, but, yes.
Emissions.

Tl;dr
There is no stealth in space
Post

Re: Before spaceships we need... rockets!

#424
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Scytale wrote: Wait, are we talking radiative emission, or 'exhaust'?
Doesnt make that much of a difference on visibility.

Your directly radiated heat is a shining beacon.
An active drive is a frickin' bright beacon.
Right so that was my point with low emissivity. A mirrored coating or any kind of zero-emissivity deployable veil could hide your emissions, no?
Post

Re: Before spaceships we need... rockets!

#425
As cornflakes said, any ship in space is visible to thermal radars (and many other ones) from millions of kilometers or miles away. On earth we have some tech to minimize heat signatures of airplanes or helicopters and so on, but in space you are shining against almost absolute zero background.

And really... there is no "other asteroid" to hide behind.

Of course, i dont mean to say you have to do it that way, i was just speaking from realism point of view. Accelerating and changing vectors would be somewhat useful in such a combat, but not anything in close proximity to the enemy, not anything like dog-fighting maneuvers.
Right so that was my point with low emissivity. A mirrored coating or any kind of zero-emissivity deployable veil could hide your emissions, no?
Nah,... at best, theoretically - you could trick the enemy into thinking its a bit smaller vessel while its actually a destroyer, but you would be visible even in such a fantastic case.
Etsu wrote: Hitting an enemy spaceship through long distances seems unlikely and risky, and I'm not sure if we have that kind of weapons. There are also legal and political considerations, possible treaties and the like. Maybe will be that kind of space combat, with unexpected long-distance attacks, but then there could be groups that prefer to perform some kind of guerrilla war too.
Such weapons will be developed for space combat simply because the environment will necessitate it. If you dont, the other guys will and so on.
Its just a matter of what kind of range you can get. Energy beam weapons can easily have range from hundreds to thousands of kilometers, small drone missiles and such could coast by inertion and change vectors only when needed, etc, etc.

Nothing of it would be unexpected. If its guerrilla warfare then its not done in spaceships. Any pirate who tries to make some sort of sneak attack would be visible to the whole solar system. And he would have nowhere to hide.

These are the real and very big reasons why in "my game" there would not be any combat between ships themselves, which would be realistic.
Last edited by Surface Reflection on Thu Jan 15, 2015 7:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post

Re: Before spaceships we need... rockets!

#426
Scytale wrote: Right so that was my point with low emissivity. A mirrored coating or any kind of zero-emissivity deployable veil could hide your emissions, no?
Well, a perfect non-absorbing surface would be a good thermal cloak.
But there are no perfect materials.

Also you'd have the contrary problem: staying cool.
You have your nuclear generator which produces a ton of heat, you have many system producing heat.
And you cant get rid of it!
You'd be cooked in your ship.

with a perfect reflecting surface you'd also be a bright target for active sensors, as you cant absorb the radiation, so you have to reflect it away.

And on top of that, you still couldnt use your drive.


and i'll just leave the rest to projectrho, because i dont want to re-type everything.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/r ... detect.php
Post

Re: Before spaceships we need... rockets!

#428
I was just looking for the atomic rockets link, but couldnt find it for some reason.
Victor Tombs wrote:
Etsu wrote:Good to hear. I thought I had drifted too far from the reasons that you'd be interested in the project in the first place. :D
:? Have you? Are we not to see the interesting characters fleshed out as you intended in an episodic game?

Is it now going to be a shallow shooter with lots of gratuitous explosions? *chuckle*
Now, now, no need for that. Etsu wants to have combat as a minor part of the gameplay, but basing it on realism necessitates some serious considerations, which can get a bit long and seemingly complicated.
There is simply a lot of material to cover and think about.

Of course, there is no need for him to go full realistic, especially since he is not interested in combat as the focus of the gameplay, so he can make his own version that is inspired by realism, but not completely realistic.
Post

Re: Before spaceships we need... rockets!

#431
I see.
Anyway, I think you guys are somewhat overestimating the sensitivity and accuracy of infrared sensors - if you want any kind of accuracy you'd have to bolt a very large and expensive ir-telescope on your ship which would also require a fair amount of cooling.
This is because of physical limitations and not technological ones, ir-imaging is intrinsically less accurate than visible light because of the longer wavelength.
Warning: do not ask about physics unless you really want to know about physics.
The LT IRC / Alternate link || The REKT Wiki || PUDDING
Image
Post

Re: Before spaceships we need... rockets!

#432
:shrug: talk to Atomic Rockets about that.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/r ... detect.php

here is a good hint:
As of 2013, the Voyager 1 space probe is about 18 billion kilometers away from Terra and its radio signal is a pathetic 20 watts (or about as dim as the light bulb in your refrigerator). But as faint as it is, the Green Bank telescope can pick it out from the background noise in one second flat.

This is with current off-the-shelf technology. Presumably future technology would be better.
yes, yes, they say radio signal not thermal, but it gives a good example of what our current tech can do.

Dont forget, the universe is super cold. And the future thermal sensors will be better then the current ones.
Thats it if you want to keep things completely realistic. And if we are thinking just about passive sensors.
Post

Re: Before spaceships we need... rockets!

#434
Very interesting discution. It is pretty useful because it could stop me for making a lot of stupid mistakes. (I can still take a lot of stupid decisions, but at least will not be by mistake. :monkey:)

I don't want to say that space combat will be like WW2 combat, but that's how I am: if someone says that space combat can't be that way, that you can't remain invisible to thermal radars, and that beam weapons will be the norm, then I choose the opposite option. Based on history at least that way I have a greater chance of being right. :mrgreen:

So I don't care too much if people believe that space combat is impossible or can't be in a specific way. I simply assume they are wrong and work from there. :twisted:
Surface Reflection wrote:And really... there is no "other asteroid" to hide behind.
There could be as many asteroids as you want. Space is full of asteroids, and in a few years or decades we will have a lot on Earth orbit, some of them very big. You could have a big asteroid shattered in different pieces for mining, and you could even considerer asteroid fields created for turism. Our world is mostly a creation of our mind. Not reason why it should be different in the future.
Victor Tombs wrote: :? Have you? Are we not to see the interesting characters fleshed out as you intended in an episodic game?

Is it now going to be a shallow shooter with lots of gratuitous explosions? *chuckle*
Gratuitous explosions. Oh, yes.

:ghost: :ghost: :ghost:
Surface Reflection wrote:Etsu wants to have combat as a minor part of the gameplay, but basing it on realism necessitates some serious considerations, which can get a bit long and seemingly complicated.
There is simply a lot of material to cover and think about.

Of course, there is no need for him to go full realistic, especially since he is not interested in combat as the focus of the gameplay, so he can make his own version that is inspired by realism, but not completely realistic.
That's the thing: I can make a game without combat, fairly realistic, and then make another one when you are a bounty hunter and are full of gadgets, fighting your way through the galaxy. (That's one of the many adventages of making a game in episodes insteed of a traditional big long duration game.) So maybe our first demo will have a lot of combat, or none. Nobody knows because it's top secret!

:squirrel: :squirrel: :squirrel:
Image
"Playing" is not simply a pastime, it is the primordial basis of imagination and creation. - Hideo Kojima

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests

cron