Original Starship Design Thread

[thekillman]

And ofc fighters are totally useless in any real space warfare setting

yes, but this is a series in which ships go .5 c and we have hyperdrives, plasma weapons ETC. so this isnt "real Space warfare"

[aAnubiSs]

yes, but this is a series in which ships go .5 c and we have hyperdrives, plasma weapons ETC. so this isnt "real Space warfare"

With real I meant "any setting where the laws of physics isn't bendable like in comic books, or anime"

A single fighter is slower, and requires 4 times the fuel of a missile(not 3 as was said before. 1 to accelerate, 2 to decelerate and change vector,3 to reaccelerate, 4 to once again decelerate for landing). And a fighter is much bigger than a missle and is still limited by the pathetic human brain and body. If Earth wanted, they could throw in a Gigaton nuke in every missle instead of a pilot.

Heck, even having anti-fighter weapons are useless. Your shield is designed to withstand massive damage from capital-grade weaponry. A small fighter would do no damage at all. The most damage that fighter could do would be to go peak delta-V and crash in to the shield... like a missle.

[thekillman]

yes, or you sit and get fired upon by several thousand darts.

[aAnubiSs]

yes, or you sit and get fired upon by several thousand darts.

At which point you just ram them, go into hyperspace, or you know... get killed by the hive ship, which would have a thousand times the firepower of your darts combined.

[lord groovy]

yes, but this is a series in which ships go .5 c and we have hyperdrives, plasma weapons ETC. so this isnt "real Space warfare"

But we have also to agree that there should be some Space Warfare basics.

And No! Fighters are not scientifically useless! switch to "strategically" and I would agree.

If you want to solve that question, you have :
1. to wonder why would you need fighters for?
2. to look if you couldn't replace it by a bigger warship
3. to look if you couldn't replace it by an unmanned drone or missile

In the 2nd proposition, it's because whoever attacks you is not interested in your fighters but on your warships than can blow them out of the sky (space...). So maybe a more powerful warship wouldn't be useless. And there would be less space dedicated to storage for the fighters.

In the 3rd, you will probably launch missile at your enemy. they are going to be destroyed. So what do you prefer? lose a more sophisticated missile that is meant to be lost or lose an advance fighter with its sophisticated weapon and its uber-trained pilot?

If you solve this riddle, you have gained a significant advantage over enemy ships.

[aAnubiSs]

The reason fighters are so damn useful in real life is that compared to cruisers and carriers, they move a hundred times faster and has a top view. That is not true in space. In space a fighter won't be moving faster, not will it have a better view.

[Lt. Col. Mcoy]

Human brain can't be jammed? Please; Ever tried looking straight at the Sun a nice, bright day? Now magnify that by a couple of hundred times due to distances involved.

All the pilots would be blind before ever engaging.

And ofc fighters are totally useless in any real space warfare setting. Everyone that has ever debated and researched that knows it, or they're just ignorant. You can't argue with scientific facts, unless you debate religion.

Okay, first off, I'm deeply insulted by the religion comment. I'll lay down biological law for you right now just to get it clear: modern genetics has shown that evolution can only realistically account for changes of 2 amino acids or less. So shut the crap up about how religion is not science. Besides, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism can't even be properly classified as religions anyway; at least, not if you don't want to claim that Evolution is a religion.

And, please, just read what I've said. I don't have time to argue this, and I knew there'd be someone who wouldn't like it, but at least show me the respect of actually considering my work, which is more than you seem to be able to give to creationists.

[Crazy Tom]

Can anyone tell me how we went from discusing the practicalyty of space fighters to debating the mereit of evolutionary theory?

[aAnubiSs]

Evolution is a theory, not fact. The speed of light in vaccuum is a fact, 1+1=2 is a fact. Evolution is a theory that can to different degrees be explained with scientific facts. Some things are still beyond us, or lost in the ocean of time. It is still the best guess we can do, based on anything resembling science/provable and testable knowledge

The fact is that creationism is NOT supported by fact. Intelligent design was created because of that. The earth was not created in 7 days, atleast not according to ANY scientific fact/idea/speculation. The only way that would be the truth would be if God changed the decay rate of certain elements in the Earth, which is he exists of course could do. However, that is not something we can prove, and probably never will; which is why it's called faith/religious belief.

Intelligent design tries to explain creationism by using some of the ideas and methods of science, but it is still not recognised as science, it's still a belief system.

Personally I'm agnostic/atheist. My brother is a muslim. I don't consider humanity to be some great creation that God would be proud of. I'm not that diluted. However, I have no problems at all with the several billion people that believe there is a God, or gods/force, out there IF they are capable of reasoning and discussing/arguing with intelligence.

I do not like, nor respect the "God did it, and if you don't believe it and try to tell me another way it would have happened I will simply yell louder and louder untill you walk away" group.

I personally LOVE discussing religion, faith as well as science. However, when discussing religion/faith, I do recognise that we'll never reach an understanding that everyone accepts and that we can prove.

Afterall, Faith is defined as "Belief in something that can not be proven"

[jonos101]

OMG Can we please not debate Religion vs Science. Please.

[titan_hq]

OMG Can we please not debate Religion vs Science. Please.

Agreed.

[aAnubiSs]

Not my fault people went postal based on my "You can't argue with scientific facts, unless you debate religion." comment. I have said all regarding religion I plan to in this topic.

[Lt. Col. Mcoy]

Can anyone tell me how we went from discusing the practicalyty of space fighters to debating the mereit of evolutionary theory?

I believe it was when he insulted anyone who is not an evolutionary follower.

Evolution is a theory, not fact. The speed of light in vaccuum is a fact, 1+1=2 is a fact. Evolution is a theory that can to different degrees be explained with scientific facts. Some things are still beyond us, or lost in the ocean of time. It is still the best guess we can do, based on anything resembling science/provable and testable knowledge

Okay, well, that's not true. First problem is that macroevolution is a hypothesis, not a theory. Second problem is that c is not a fact either. Science can't prove anything, by definition. Third is that 1+1=2 is not a natural or scientific exercise; it's math, and math is a mental construct.

The fact is that creationism is NOT supported by fact. Intelligent design was created because of that. The earth was not created in 7 days, atleast not according to ANY scientific fact/idea/speculation. The only way that would be the truth would be if God changed the decay rate of certain elements in the Earth, which is he exists of course could do. However, that is not something we can prove, and probably never will; which is why it's called faith/religious belief.

Okay, man, if I had a quarter for every time I had to say this: Intelligent Design encompasses Creationism...IT IS NOT CREATIONISM UNDER ANOTHER NAME! Yes, creationist ideas fall under Intelligent Design, but not all Intelligent Design is Creationism. And, again, contrary to popular belief, INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAME FIRST!

Second, by your own definition, Evolution cannot be science either. You can run tests in a lab all day and can never prove that life grew from a single cell etc. Another snag is, that by denying the supernatural, Evolution becomes inherently non-disprovable! And the thing that makes science (according to you) science is that it can be disproved!


Thirdly, it is simply not true that you cannot prove that God exists. The reason you believe this is because you do not understand the difference between the scientific method for unrepeatable events, and the scientific method for repeatable events. I cannot prove that Julius Caesar existed in a lab; I can't create him in a test tube, and even if I could, it wouldn't prove that he really existed in the past. And yet, I would be hard pressed to find anyone who didn't believe in him.


Now then, compare this to the Bible. The Bible fulfills all the criteria of historical reliability, and does so over ten times better than any other book in history.

Even if that doesn't convince you, the Arabs actually came up with a completely unarguable logical reasoning for God's existence, which follows:

1. Anything that has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. The universe therefore has a cause.

And I can even go further:

4. The universe is infinite.
5. Therefore it must have an infinite cause.

I do not like, nor respect the "God did it, and if you don't believe it and try to tell me another way it would have happened I will simply yell louder and louder untill you walk away"

Okay. Neither does any self-respecting Christian. Now...when did I say that?

[Lt. Col. Mcoy]

And this is not 'Science vs. Religion'. That is a completely false dichotomy which the evolutionists would just love creationists and Intelligent Design to accept. This is two views of science vs. each other.

[jonos101]

And this is not 'Science vs. Religion'. That is a completely false dichotomy which the evolutionists would just love creationists and Intelligent Design to accept. This is two views of science vs. each other.

Ok, sorry. I'm not into science or religion, it was just the first thing that came to my mind.