In Starship Warfare,is the size matter ,bigger the better?

[IcyNeko]

True. But then why do the Asgard vessels get larger and larger? Possibly because they build it in case they have to relocate a population en masse? They certainly don't need some of those rooms...?

[thegreatKull]

i think yoda put it best "size matters not" lol. i think that the remote missile thing is a good idea but itll take a little bit more manuverable engine on the missile, cause other wise the pilot would just be controling it in a general direction, not to mention a good control interface, point defence weapons wouldnt be a bad idea either cause you could use a super unstable lasing material so there would be more explosive potential to it.

[Ouroboros]

If the Wraith can jam the Asgaurd teleporter they could probably jam the hell out of the connection on any kind of remote controlled missile.

The best bet for getting a nuke through is to build a railgun big enough to throw one or a MIRV type warhead that breaks apart into a bunch of smaller warheads, or one big one and a bunch of decoys, when it gets into their PD range.

[AtlantisForever]

hmmm maybe but i agree it could hold alot more F-302's and more weapons but the bigger the ship is the bigger the problems can be..

[carcatcher]

The biggest problem that I see with getting bigger is that you reach a point where more power is being consumed by support services ( ventilation, heat, water recycling, cooking, etc.) than what is provided for the weapons and shields. The best battlecraft has the most powerful and efficient power-generator with the most powerful shields, weapons, and hyperdrive (no good being powerful if you can't get there in time) tied directly in. The only other thing you would need is some room to put in some refugees, a place to put your head and a washroom. The ship doesn't need to be able to support a crew for more than a week or so and the crew doesn't need to be large, since any battlecraft is really only a support craft anyway.

[cs-comm]

Larger ships alow space for larger power generators, weapons and cargo holds. A larger ship can carry heavier armour and stronger shields then a smaller ship. While smaller ships are generally faster since it is easier to accelerate a smaller mass, larger ships with more guns can throw walls of fire that are impossible to dodge.

Furthermore, a larger ship implies more advanced engineering capabilities since it much harder to keep larger ships intact while they accelerate (not to metion accelerate them in the first place).

[cobraR478]

Larger ships alow space for larger power generators, weapons and cargo holds. A larger ship can carry heavier armour and stronger shields then a smaller ship. While smaller ships are generally faster since it is easier to accelerate a smaller mass, larger ships with more guns can throw walls of fire that are impossible to dodge.

Furthermore, a larger ship implies more advanced engineering capabilities since it much harder to keep larger ships intact while they accelerate (not to metion accelerate them in the first place).

All of these ideas are assumptions based on stuff we have literally no idea about. In reality, if interstellar travel ever does happen, we will have a particular range of sizes for a ship based on many variables. Most likely, its going to be better to have three ships with 1/3 the mass of that big super ship you want to build.

EDIT: The one thing we do know is that humans ALWAYS look for a smaller, cheaper way to make the same thing.

[cs-comm]

Most likely, its going to be better to have three ships with 1/3 the mass of that big super ship you want to build.

It would depend on their purpose ie what they're designed for. A larger ship would be better for some things and smaller ships for other things.

EDIT: The one thing we do know is that humans ALWAYS look for a smaller, cheaper way to make the same thing.

Of course! That's why modern supercarriers are smaller then their WWII counter parts... Smaller is better for things like computers, cell phones and consumer products but not everything; bigger isn't always better either.

[Exiled Master]

I think it's about how many different things a ship can do. If it has a disruptor, you can make a bigger one. If it has a staff weapon, you can make a bigger one. There is a principle to developing systems like a space ship: Better, faster, cheaper: Choose two.

[IcyNeko]

Here's a thought. The old computers (ENIAC) filled an entire room and could barely do operations. Then we found better materials to make it out of, more conductive materials and suddenly the computer went from a room to half a room. Nowadays, computers are smallter than a cell phone (which are computers in and of themselves), and run 1000x or more faster than the old computers tha filled a room. And they do better heat disappation.

Notice how Atlantis controls use crystals? It's been speculated that crystal-based technology is the future, being that they allow for more data transfer with minimal heat. They were experimenting with a 6 - 10 Ghz Diamond-based processor a while back...

What I'm saying is... everything gets smaller with the advancement of technology. If the Tauri made ships with equivalent power to an asgard mothership, it would be the size of a solar system and run on nuclear energy.

As technology advances, things shrink in size until the only parameter that defines their size is their use.

[carcatcher]

some say big, some say small. We have both already! With some weapon upgrades and a little more power production, we can compete with what we have already!

[nickak2003]

Effeciency is directly related to size, as you make systems larger, the less effecient they become. At some point it makes sense to make a series of smaller devices. This principle also applies to ships as a whole. A super huge ship like a wraith hive ship would need to have a special design to it. In order to maintain decent effeciency, it would need lots of duplicated, redundant, smaller systems throughout the ship, rather than having single large master systems.

You cant just plug thousands of nuclear reactors together though and expect to have a zpm like powersource. As the size of the whole thing increases, the practical power output is going to decrease, as distances increase and masses increase, and resource requirements increase.

As technology advances, things shrink in size until the only parameter that defines their size is their use.

Well things are generally only made as large as necessary, given technology. The only time size is favored is when there is a desire to hold more things. For instance, battleships and bombers used to be favored for size. Now that weapon effectiveness as incerased though, we have bombers with only a small number of bombs, and each bomb may have its own target.

One thing that I think hasnt been expressed much in scifi is range. In space you have potential for some really long ranged weapons, you may have missiles able to travel across systems if not galaxies, and energy and projectile weapons with very long range. In the future, if it is ever scifi like, all one force will need to do is learn the location of their enemy, and then overwhelm them with weapons, perhaps from distant hidden locations. There wont be any gunslinging battleships or battles at highnoon as featured on stargate. It will be phenomenally easy, easier than it is now, to target civilian populations. If wars are ever fought, the military defenders will probably be the last to know. Which of course lends its self to a complete change in the way society works, but yada yada.

[cobraR478]

It would depend on their purpose ie what they're designed for. A larger ship would be better for some things and smaller ships for other things.



Of course! That's why modern supercarriers are smaller then their WWII counter parts... Smaller is better for things like computers, cell phones and consumer products but not everything; bigger isn't always better either.

Well, they are different levels technology, with a different optimum range for size. Which, I believe, I accounted for in one of my posts. There was an optimum size for WWII battleships, and there is an optimum size for modern battleships. They aren't bigger for the sake of being bigger.


Obviously larger ships would have their uses, but they would most likely be as small as the technology would allow them to be for their given purpose.

[nickak2003]

essentially, ranges will be so great that there will be no such thing as defense, and certainly not in terms of starships, and therefore size does not matter.

[cs-comm]

Well, they are different levels technology, with a different optimum range for size. Which, I believe, I accounted for in one of my posts. There was an optimum size for WWII battleships, and there is an optimum size for modern battleships.

So you agree that bigger can be better. No one would be stupid enough to assume that war is so one-dimensional that smaller would be better in every case or that bigger would be better in every case.

They aren't bigger for the sake of being bigger.

It would be odd for a technologically advanced space faring race to build something bigger for the sake of being bigger. Like I said before, if you make a ship bigger it would be because you want to fit more guns, make those guns more powerful, to have better shields, armour and power generators.

essentially, ranges will be so great that there will be no such thing as defense, and certainly not in terms of starships, and therefore size does not matter.

Ever heard of counter-battery fire? Why would increased range negate any defenses? Historically as weapon ranges increased new defenses and tactics were developed that countered those new ranges.