Well, there is no stealth, and there is ALL stealth in space. Yes, you can't hide. But be far enough away, or coast like an asteroid, and as long as noone looks at you, you are invisible. And as long as you don't make too much noise.
also keep in mind that you're not going to detect a laser weapon that is targeted at you until it has already hit you, as is the nature of light speed.
@@ybokors8524 You might be able to tell that the laser is there, you might even be able to tell parts of the assembly heating up before firing the blast, but all of that also comes with the light delay *and* you can't know if that laser is actually aimed at *you*
but lasers will have much smaller range than railguns and missiles though, they are also A LOT less powerful than a steel and tungsten projectile flying toward you at mach 20. lasers will maybe slowly scorch a fixed point of your hull and slowly cut it at maybe 50km away, a railgun projectile will basically go right through your entire ship as if you were made of smoke from a completely different orbit, or the moon depending on how good the aiming is. the advantage of lasers is, as people already said, they can't be dodged and are pinpoint precise, so you can use them to basically disable everything that is exposed, like your enemy weapons.
My favorite space combat story was a book called "The Forever War". One of the "battles" was simply, "We've detected an enemy missile. I will impact us in about a week."
THIS Lmao, yeah the battles and descriptions were so detailed in the technicals it really fired my imagination and got me thinking about space all over again
And yet Heinlein managed to construct a scenario where two space-going civilisations had to fight with hand-to-hand weaponry just to make things interesting!
Realistic space combat runs into the same problems that face realistic sword fights: the fights would be short and largely determined by who lands the first hit. There can still be suspense, but it's a lot trickier to keep an audience's attention when taking any hit means the fight ends and the other party will die. You can make it work for books quite well, examinkng the thoughts going through each fighter's head with each action, but in more visual media like movies or shows, that flexibility of time to draw out a short fight through mind games and such is a lot harder to pull off
Real life fighter jet dogfights already look like that. When they interviewed WW2 aces, they talked about how quickly the fights were over and about how it was all about having the advantage in speed and altitude, as opposed to long drawn own aerobatics competitions like we see on the screen.
@@slicershanks1919 that's the problem with combat in terms of excitement. If it's a 1 on 1 fight it's just a matter of who lands the first finishing blow, be that knocking someone out cold in a fisticuff or at least break their leg or something so that they can't continue the fight, or basically the same thing but with weapons. I can see a swordfight taking a bit longer if both are really good at parrying the other's blows but someone will make a mistake at some point. That's kinda what your goal in a fight with melee weapons is, exploit an enemy's mistake and hope you don't make one. That mistake could also be that the enemy is too weak to parry your blows because you're Swolo McBeefcake. In a gunfight? It's all about hitting the vulnerable parts of your enemy first and sometimes that can be from just sniping your enemy who was unaware of your presence. Vehicular fights? Mostly comes down to whose combat vehicle is better. A jeep with a machine gun is faster and more mobile than a tank but that jeep can't do shit against the tank's armor so it's more about when the tank will land a shot. Wildcard there could be infantry with anti vehicle weaponry but those have to rely on the vehicle they intend to destroy with it being unaware of them and the weapon they are using being able to one shot the vehicle or at least deal serious damage to it. But as soon as the vehicle operator knows where you are you are toast. The same will happen for spacefights, attacking another vessel will mostly come down to who has the better ship. As Kyle said, there is no stealth in space. You see an enemy and as soon as they are in range of your weapons you can unload on them and they will unload on you until only one ship remains. Or none. Big ships will have an advantage in those fights because by sheer size alone the attackers will need to land more hits to actually destroy it. In that sense the Borg ships from Star Trek might actually be the most efficient warships in SciFi simply because they are big cubes with multiple redundancies built it, weapon arrays spread across its surface so even if you blow a huge chunk out of it it can still fight back. It also runs off a central computer that can coordinate the crew instantly. Though in theory you wouldn't even need a big crew to operate such a ship, you'd need a command crew that tells the computer what to do and then the computer will do the fighting for you. At best. Maybe a backup engineering crew to keep the main systems running but that too wouldn't require alot of people. Unless your ship is capable of self repairing those things, which we can assume will be a thing.
That's pretty much like any battle in real life goes - 95% of the time is maneuvering and 5% of the time - actual fire engagement, very fast ans very fierce. If fire contact lasts longer bodies and wounded start to pile up very quickly.
My dad loved Star Wars, and he watched it by himself before he even told me about it. His enthusiasm could not have been more intense! But he always bemoaned the concept that people were even needed to fight in space, especially in such an advanced civilization. He said that computers would handle everything infinitely better than humans could. Some years later I read a short story (I think it was in Omni Magazine) where wars between planets and systems were merely calculated by computers to determine which side was the winner, thus avoiding so much unnecessary bloodshed.
@@Cthulhu357 lol you caveman! To defeat computer, you do not need another computer. You need space copyright! "Quick! Gunner it says "Insert original disk", were is our original disk??!!" 🤣
@@Cthulhu357 not true, if you have paid attention to the starcraft ai development you would know how wrong that assumption is. and even the best humans in the world cannot beet them unless they put restrictions on the ai.
And when one empire doesn't agree to this AI concept of war? What about when you get something like a devouring swarm like the Tyranids? Or you get some race like the Klingons who want to fight for the glory of the fight?
With regards to frail meat bodies and maneuvering, I liked how in Halo 3 one of the terminals talked about a space battle where an A.I. in control of a large combat vessel basically disregarded the humans on board in order to more effectively maneuver the ship and that the A.I. was fleetingly aware of how the former occupants were now basically splatters of gooey matter sloshing around inside the ship.
The bobiverse series was such a great example of AI ship to ship combat. The only limits to G force being on the hardware itself, and all engagements essentially being won or lost thousands of miles before anything kinetic ever happens. Many times only getting one good pass at an enemy with a miss meaning several days to decelerate and turn back
You need to read the Lost Fleet series by Jack Campbell. He went out of his way to try to get the physics for space combat as realistic as possible. Including talking about things and the fact that combat takes place over hundreds of thousands of miles.
The best part of that whole series for me was that not only does the preparation before battle last for months, the battles are over in seconds and conducted by AI gunners. The crew is just along for the ride other than making repairs, planning the battle, or planetary invasions.
If you like this stuff I would recommend the Forever War by Joe Haldeman. It has insanely long range relativistic space combat, taking place over light years distance, and looks at the consequences of that.
Thank you for this post and for beating me to it. Love that series so much for all of the realistic sci-fi space battles. I'm actually re-reading it now. The time delay aspects of communicating even at the speed of light really make for interesting preparation for space battles. You just arrived in a system? You get the full picture of what is happening there (even if it is old information) while the other guy has to wait hours to see that you even got there. Love that he dunks on fighters and stationary weapons platforms the whole time. He even calls the kinetic projectiles that ships launch at stationary targets "rocks." LOVE this series and really recommend it.
I really enjoyed the interaction of FTL and light delay, basically every time a ship exits FTL it gets a massive information advantage as it can immediately see everything in the system while those in the system will take hours to see the ship. Really nice series.
so you all ok with stupid retro idea that thousands years ahead people still fighting like monkeys , now in space? lol. its like zero knowledge about human psychology progress. there is no wars in the future let alone space wars
@tizodd6 please read or listen to the last 3 audiobooks it goes in a way different crazier direction and I loved it all. I listened through all the audio books after watching the show it's worth it
@@tizodd6You’re doing yourself a great disservice if you haven’t read the books. Although they’re much much better than the show I will give the show credit because it’s some of the best sci-fi I’ve ever seen.
Expanse have pretty great space combat vision Also there is Honor Harrington series, written by navy officer. There are great takes on different types of weaponry, tactics, strategy and formations in fleet to fleet, fleet to space station+fleet, fleet to planet with orbital defences. Also, there are great takes on swarms of small vessels in combat, stealth in space and at war in general, pricy high-tech vs low-cost low-tech strategies and tactics.
Space combat in The Expanse is probably some of the most realistic in SciFi, as they take into account acceleration and also the lack of gravity, but they also have plausible weapons, with missiles and EM rail guns used offensively, while lasers and projectiles are used defensively (against missiles). However, even The Expanse opts for the "rule of cool" by having stealthy spacecraft, such as the Amun-Ra stealth frigates. Another (unrelated) glaring error, is that the alien wormhole is a 2D ring when it should be a 3D sphere... Honor Harrington is OK, but suffers from the same problem as Star Trek, as most of the flying and firing is still performed manually by humans, when computers can already perform these tasks better. The spaceships in Peter F. Hamilton's "Night's Dawn Trilogy", such as the sentient Voidhawks, are more plausible, piloted by an AI which is symbiotically, neurally bonded with their human pilot.
Check out Space Carrier by Ian Douglas, The Lost Fleet by Jack Campbell, Hyperion by Dan Simmons or even Starship Troopers by Heinlein if you want good space/space combat or just better space travel in general. I especially love Hyperion's method of fast travel in that she ship is fine.....the humans are turned to liquid due to the accelerations, just reassembled after the ship gets to where it's going. And in Space Carrier they generate micro black holes in front of the ship that pop in and out. But since the entire ship is pulled towards it and not propelling itself then it can go FTL as it's the frame that's moving.
@@gotindrachenhart 💯 agreed. For me, Hamilton is something like the Tolkien of Sci-Fi. Ridiculously detailed world building filled with fantastically imaginative ideas, but not the best at writing characters. 😁
@@gotindrachenhart Thanks for the recommendations. 👍 I've read the first book in the Star Carrier series. It was OK, but I found his storytelling somewhat lacking. Hopefully, it gets more interesting as the series progresses. Your other suggestions are all on my reading list, especially the Hyperion Cantos and Starship Troopers. I'm currently re-reading the Foundation series after ~30 years and while Asimov's imaginative world building is still impressive, his characters are poorly written and his writing style leaves much to be desired.
Mass Effect 1 has a codex entry describing the complications of fighting in space, there's so much thought and lore put into it. The cutscenes don't really reflect how interesting that entry is, but it's nice that it's there.
I just love that little scene in ME3 maybe, when an officer tells the gunners, when they fire a thermonuclear shell and did not hit target it will just fly straight into space until will hit something/one eventually.
@@teveszaki Wasn't there a scene in ME1 where a NCO was dressing down two junior enlisted, ending his lecture with something like Newton is the baddest MF in space.
This is why i have a serious appreciation of the television show The Expanse. They have their own stretches on physics but they paid a great deal more attention to details than pretty much any other show or movie.
@@ianh1504 that´s to be expected, with all the fictional alien stuff... And it´s somehow ALWAYS the fictional alien stuff in most shows, that doesn´t make any sense and gets eventually overblown to a point of pure fantasy.
@@Morpheus-pt3wq I'm fine with that though. Otherwise whatever mystery might be left in the universe would be pretty static and too familiar to really evoke that sense of wonder.
@@Morpheus-pt3wq its unfortunate that real life got in the way of making the 6th season so they had to heavily edit the story and now we'll probably never get to see the end of the series
Exactly! I like that the expanse show that they have to completely strap in and even be injected with a stimulant that is a mix of blood thinne, blood vessel protection, and adrenaline when they have to make extreme maneuvers or speed.
The way FTL handles space piracy is honestly pretty cool. They answer the question of how pirates would board your ship with "teleportation," and "they ram a robot through the hull, causing a breach that sucks all the air out, and then the robot kills everyone aboard," and, "lol they don't, they blast your ship with enough radiation to kill your crew," and so on.
These are pretty solid methods. But, 1. Teleportation comes with it's own problems, the first of which "what's the point of space travel when you can simply teleport to your destination?" 2. That robot approach is actually pretty awesome. In a similar manner, I know a book where they sneak one guy aboard a ship who then proceeds to construct hundreds of combat robots in-situ using hacked shipboard facilities. And in order to defend, the ships crew must build their own robot army and a war of attrition ensues, like skirmish RTS match aboard a space ship. It's wild. 3. Radiation sounds neat, but might get blocked by a ships hull which would already be radiation-proof against cosmic rays. And for anything more effective againt the hull you'll probably end up with lasers anyways.
@@debott4538 To contribute to your first point, we already see this on our current scale. Some people prefer driving or trekking cross country instead of taking a flight because they get more enjoyment out of it. I'm one of them. Instead of taking a 1 hour flight to Atlanta and being done with it as quick as possible, I'd rather take a 7 hour drive in my own car. If we lived in an era space travel and teleportation I don't think my opinion would sway too much. Throw on some dub techno and I'm at peace with the engine of my craft droning away in the vast nothingness of it all. The closest thing we have to space travel currently is cargo ship travel where you can be out at sea for days at a time. Every now and then you'll pass someone else, but for the most part it's just you and your crew out there.
@@FurryWrecker911 @FurryWrecker911 Thanks for the response. But I think your point lacks somewhat since we were talking about an environment where piracy is a thing. I assume you are not often at risk of armed robbery on your 7 hour drives, are you? ;) And if you were, wouldn't you also prefer your trip via air plane?
@@debott4538 Oh I was speaking more in a general sense of transportation as a whole, less so about FTL. My mistake. I lost sight of the big picture here.
This video actually makes me appreciate the way Dune's space travel is done even more, especially for a story of that era. Space travel in Dune is very expensive, especially when traveling to different star systems, and there is no combat in space because all space travel is controlled by one entity. Battle is still done within the atmosphere of planets and as such it follows the same laws of physics as modern day war but with more advanced technology.
Gotta love how despite warhammer40k being a direct copycat of Dune, they made everything so bad shit insane its unrecognizable. Like space ships ramming and broadside combat kinda crazy
The Expanse probably has the most realistic space battles so far. Especially in the books when they dont have to cram everything to within visual range for the viewers.
The issue with locating something small, like the Voyager probes, over a large distance is that you need to know exactly where to look. Space is big. Really big.
Yeah, that was my thought. Sure, you could probably, theoretically see just about anything you want within the solar system, but unless you know where to look to begin with, it seems like you'd have to get really lucky to see any ship, large or small, if it isn't broadcasting any kind of signal.
Also that the voyager is designed to be noticeable, we designed it to be seen at long ranges. The fact we don't have stealth spacecraft that don't emit EM radiation isn't indicative that it's not possible, but that it hasn't been a design criteria so far. As soon as space warfare becomes a thing, that'll absolutely be something that we design ships for, exactly like we design stealth fighters today.
To be fair, it is kinda difficult to design something to not emit EM radiation. If the craft if constructed in space sure, but to do so on a body then launch it into space is going to be difficult given the extra mass.
The problem is heat. If you dont radiate it out you shit would cook very fast. Thrust cant be hidden at all. Then you also have the issue that your shit obstructs what is behind you which can easily be detected.
Yea, his contention that stealth is no longer a varible, either through size, or distance or extremely low albedo at most all frequencies is silly. Of COURSE that would still be a massive factor. He's kind of a science nerd with no experince but lots of standard science jammed into his head.
Gundam sorted this out in the combat in the 70s. Ambushed in asteroids, and use special sensor jamming particle generators to be harder to detect. The small ships, and even the robots, were mainly used to fight the enemy big ships at close range while said big ships were busy fighting the other big ships.
"asteroids" Nope. Asteroid fields like in star wars don't exist in space, apart for a very short time, like when a moon is destroyed by its host planet when it comes across the Roche limit.
Another solution to this issue with realistic space combat is that, with few exceptions, any Gundam series in the metaseries that uses energy weapons utilizes *only* particle beam weapons, circumventing the issue with the instantaneous/near-instantaneous shoot-to-hit time that lasers would have.
@@CurrypkatRamonlab The asteroid thickets present in many of those Gundam series are usually explained away as being the result of human intervention, e.g. literally being pulled out of the Asteroid Belt by starship tugs and brought closer to various places for easier access for mining and/or building purposes, or, in some cases, being used to drop on Earth/or tossed at space colonies because... The insanity of man and their ideological grudges. Even then, asteroid fields like commonly depicted in most Sci-Fi are practically non-existent, with the closest being areas with a high concentration of battlefield debris generally termed as "shoal zones" in the various series. If you had watched any one of the Gundam series, you would've found the explanation pretty much handed to you on a silver platter, instead you wanted to sound smart.
@@The-Plaguefellow I sounded smart (for what I care) explaining how it is in real life, not in anime or scifi shows. You, sounded acrimonious and quite like pure form of social network drone.
@@CurrypkatRamonlabno, you sounded like you were trying to talk down to them. The person didn't write about hiding in an asteroid belt. They wrote about hiding behind or in asteroids. Which would be highly feasible in nearly any space based setting. Any colony building would be dependent on asteroids for building material. Likely many colonies would be made directly from any asteroid of significant size and composition. Gundam has several large asteroids that have been brought into orbit arounds Earth and many clusters of debris from large scale battles.
MassEffect 1 had a wonderful Codex Article covering Space Combat, elaborating on how engagements would take place light seconds and light minutes away. It also touches on heat management in warships and how you cannot effectively get rid of heat caused by weapons systems. It was very detailed but sadly in-game you never saw it in action.
Yes, the heat aspect gets overlooked most of the time. They allways have some form of "generator" or "reactor" that produces all the required power and some form of "shield" that dissipates incoming beams and projectiles, but where does all this energy go? In warhammer 40k the shields transfer the impacting energy into another dimension aka the warp aka literal hell.
Yeah heat management would be a huge limiting factor in space combat. In vacuum you can only get rid of excess heat via radiation, which is pretty slow and depends on the surface area. This would definitely impact the design of ships and choice of weapons. I think the most useful weapon would be rockets/torpedoes since you can just "push them" out of the ship without significant excess heat and they can start accelerating on their own (burning their own propellant), heating up only themselves. On the other hand, humans have always been very good at developing ways of killing each other, so I would trust them in this case too.
@@SMJSmoK I agree those choices would limit heat surplus aboard the ship but at those ranges of light seconds or minutes, torpedoes or missles cannot hold enough fuel to track or lead a target, plus they are too slow in velocity only reachimg several 10 of thousands mph as apossed to railguns reaching percentages of C.
Probably the best depiction of how "stealth in space" would work, is in the "Helforts War series by Graham Sharp Paul". Most of the first book is them planning and executing a raid using things like plant shadows and regualar orbiting comets to mask the approach and inseartion into a system.
Or maybe the battleships hide inside black holes after all even the slowest Starships in Star Trek at just ridiculous speed which is 5 times the speed of light would be able to hide inside of a black hole without being pulled towards the singularity of the black hole so the battle plans are: step 1 hide inside black hole until the enemy gets close, step 2 attack enemy spacecraft until they either give up or they fall into the black hole after their ships faster than light speed drives that become damaged to the point where they can't operate properly anymore, step 3 capture enemy spacecraft and force the crew to tell you where the enemy base is, and then step 4 raid enemy base and win the interstellar War! 🫡👍👌🙏😊😀
@@DavidMuri-rm4ym check out Battlestar Galactica! The synthetic side literally has its base in the very small machine made calm zone of a natural singularity. Forcing all the attackers to either stay away or jump directly beside the armed base. Which they do.
I think stealth in space can only be achieved through hacking and intelligence. Imagine something otherwise obvious, right out there in the open, but you can't see it because your systems are lying to you. Maybe everyone else in the solar system have caught on but you've been cut off by some MitM spoofing tactic and is blissfuly unaware. And of course the speed of causality could be a factor. e.g., If something went down on Pluto, Earth wouldn't know for several hours. Another thing sci-fi could play with is to lower the tech and cornucopia a bit, like 1969 space combat. Think: Das Boot, but in space. Tense and gritty, with all the physics.
Even if you do all that, your ship's I.R. signature would literally stick out like a flare. That's why cloaking devices or shutting everything down and "running silent" won't hide your ship either.
I feel like space piracy would have to be more just fake distress calls and just waiting around hoping someone will take the bait, you’d probably need a secondary ship to occasional make an approach and preform a “rescue” so it doesn’t look too suspicious after a while. But I agree that most of the piracy would probably happen planet side. I do think space combat where everyone always knows where everyone else is is actually kinda interesting, a lot more plan and strategize on approach than high maneuverability jet pilots.
Ideally smart pirates would already have some of their crew aboard the target vessel, both to determine the worth of the potential booty and to neutralize any on board defenses. It would be more space hijacking rather than space piracy.
That, or staying powered down in a debris or asteroid field to ambush any scavengers or miners that come too cole to you. Pirates would never be able to ambush trading ships in a space scenario like the expanse because those would be at a ridiculously high relative speed if they ever came close to a prepared ambush. Things that treat you hidings spot as thier destination would be the only available targets.
the battle for information in a space battlefield would still be present, just a lot different than traditional warfare. instead of detection vs stealth by concealment (the physical obstruction of information vs the effort to uncover them), the meta of information warfare would be based on prediction & precise timing vs unpredictability & unexpected maneuvers, due the real-time lag of information (light speed) in extreme distances between space combatants.
One of the scenarios written for the Traveller RPG (yes, the 1970s original, released the same year as _Star Wars_ ) presented a nice starship defence against space pirates. When the pirates fire a warning shot across your bows, you radio your surrender, kill the drive and open the airlock. The pirate ship docks and the boarding party transfer to your ship. When they open the inner airlock door they find themselves staring into the gaping mouth of your laser cannon... Having vapourised the boarding party and shot the guts out of the pirate vessel, you send your salvage crew out via the real airlock to claim your prize.
I never called Star Wars a "Science Fiction" movie series, I called it "Space Fantasy" since it had a lot of magic and was just high fantasy just set in space.
Yes you can detect small spacecraft that are far away, with one major caveat-- you have to know where to look. It's hard to keep track of every tiny pin-prick-sized spot in all directions (the whole sphere of directions) all at the same time. A small spacecraft "fighter" closing in from an unexpected direction could take an enemy by surprise.
Honestly though, this kind of tech is difficult to implement but not impracticable. F-35B pilots have sensors around their hull feeding data to their AR headsets that can enable full 360 degree vision about the aircraft, even though the body of the plane, in multiple spectrums. This really would end up being just another advantage of larger ships, probably. The smaller a sensor is, the harder it generally is to reach either extreme range or accuracy. For an advanced spaceship, having more room to accommodate larger sensors (and more of them) will provide better awareness, and reaching a certain level of capability will be easier. With that being said though, smaller ships would still be able to incorporate this ability, just at smaller scales. I think when spacecraft are developed to the point where a sensor suite like this is feasible (in terms of mass and power requirements) it would become standard safety tech. The only reason we don’t do this now is because power and mass are the biggest limiting constraints on spacecraft. We have come up with more clever ways to stay safe and be aware of our surroundings from outside the craft, so we don’t have to make every spacecraft carry all that extra stuff. It would be great if it could all be on-board, but the challenge in doing so is something we have to overcome anyways before ‘space navies’ ever become a thing, which is overcoming the limits our our current energy and propulsion technologies.
Not really. All spacecraft will give off infrared energy, which isn't difficult to detect. You'll know where anything and everything is around you, reaction time and anticipating what the enemy will do is important.
You also have to assume that, despite having the scientific knowhow to travel distances over time to make this scenario even plausible, no one has ever developed technology for a ship trying to actively remain stealthy to fool these sensors. We would likely see the same sort of stealth arms race we see today, where stealth tech gets better causing sensors to get better causing stealth tech to get better, rinse and repeat.
I was about to say this. Thanks for pointing that out. Even if something is detectable from a very far distance the farther you go the amount of data you need to elaborate grows exponentially high to a point where the mere computation would take several years at least with current technology. Realistically speaking a ship would only try to detect objects that are within a certain range, which arguably can still be a pretty enormous radius, but certainly not spanning an entire solar system.
In Gundam they solved the problem introducing "Minovsky physics", basically the fusion reactors used scatter a fictional subatomic particle, the Minovsky particle, that messes up with any kind of communication and detection, wich means that combat can only happen within visual range. And the only weapons similar to drones have to be either controlled through cables, or with the extrasensorial abilities of the pilot.
I feel like Gundam also compliments this by then adding in New Types to the mix, with their superhuman empathy acting like a radar built upon that 6th sense of mankind. It’s neat how when technology fell short, mankind’s role as a social species ascended to accommodate.
"Legend of the Galactic Heroes" also did space combat pretty well in my opinion. There was no dog fights. Space combat came entirely down to large fleets fighting it out in long range shootouts with tactical positioning and kind of "flanking". And then there was the occasional the use of "super weapons"
Something I really enjoyed about Battlestar Galactica reboot is that while they did go with the whole space fighter thing, they at least didn't limit them to aerial maneuvers dictated by aerodynamics. They moved about with RCS thrusters, spun around to shoot at pursuing craft etc, it was pretty cool.
There's a game called "Children of a Dead Earth",which attempts to make orbital combat as realistic as possible. The most notable feature are orbital mechanics just like in KSP
It still makes some concessions to make you actually go close to the enemy. Railgunning each other from a neighbouring moon isnt modeled, and you dont get to use big boy nukes.
Big boy nukes are possible if you know how to make them. I've got 25mt yield warheads the size of a person in that, and 2kt micronukes the size of a football. It doesn't model billion km ranges because they aren't possible with tech we have now. The precision required to make a railgun slug reach as far as it does right now requires 0.0001 for the margin of error, and thats to reach 6km with a target radius of about 30ft. To put a round in a target at 20,000km would require a precision barrel with an error rate in the 0.00000001 range. Aka, not possible. Yes technically you can reach infinite distance, but actually hitting the target is another matter.
Using large gravitational wells to 'slingshot' objects towards a target would be incredibly effective you could launch a missile toward a star, the engine power would be covered by the 'noise' the star it producing, once it is on the far side of the star it could cut engine and leave escape velocity towards the target at incredible rates of speed. If you painted the missile an extra dark black, it would be almost impossible to see coming before it hit you. The margin of error on such a thing would be incredibly difficult but you could theoretically use air burst control to redirect on route without being detected.
Remember that detecting and tracking weak radio sources from millions to billions of kilometers away requires some pretty big receiver dishes that dwarf any spacecraft that we can even hope to build in the not too distant future. Also, even with a bunch of those huge dishes here on Earth, it helps to know where to look since too many are needed to scan the entire sky continuously.
But your system will never be attacked by 20 W probes. Rocket plumes will be seen in visible light and infrared by much smaller telescopes all the way up to Pluto. (Additionally, even though it's not important in this context, weak radio signals could be detected in space by huge radiotelescopes because they can be made _extremely_ light in space due to not having to support themselves against gravity.)
@@fsmoura they are not going to use radio, that's absurd. And rocket's won't be on the menu either. No one had any idea the combustion engine was a thing until it was invented and changed the planet. Same thing will happen with whatever tech is coming.
Also, all that telemetry just told you where the object was and what it was doing several minutes or even hours ago. Not where it is now, nor what it's been doing.
@@FrostSpike Good point, I'vent seen this mentioned before. Still, if its that far it is of no threat to you and this light lag it doesn't matter much.
Well, your idea of an exciting sci fi-based video game may be fun for about half an hour. But in general, you seem to want to analyze games like Starfield, and sci fi in general based on our current scientific and technological limitations and a serious lack of imagination. First, artificial gravity answers a lot of your questions. Directed, controllable gravity generation can not only be used for propulsion and artificial ship-board gravity, but also to cancel out inertial effects of sudden acceleration/deceleration. Second, no, space combat would not favor smaller number of larger capital ships unless you had perfect shields that would cover every angle of attack equally as well as distribute damage perfectly across the shields. Third, you’re seriously underplaying how difficult detection can be to make the argument that stealth would be impossible in space. You have to be looking in the right direction, in the right electro-magnetic or alternate band, have the right size of apparatus to be able to cover the wavelengths, etc. And then, if you’re in a system, especially near planets or asteroid fields/belts, well, good luck distinguishing something that’s actively masquerading as something else, especially if they’re not using particulate or EM-based propulsion at all. Edit: This was meant to reply to the video not the top comment here, which I wholly agree with as well.
i think all of this is why the warp/jump/wormhole drive or whatever is such a magical piece of sci-fi gear. it not only makes travel over long distance feasible in a meaningful time period, but it would also make it impossible to observe someone move towards you, as the target would be moving at the speed of light (or faster). you literally wouldn't be able to attack or prepare defenses until they drop out of warp on you, making space a highly agressive battlefield. i really like how the older elite games handled warp. it was only usable between systems, but still tooks years to do. additionally, jumping between systems left a visible wake from where you entered hyperspace, and a ship with faster warp could analyze your warp wake, outspeed you to your destination, and literally just wait for you to arrive and kill you. that was a take i found really interesting on space combat.
I actually had a interesting idea in my own sci fi world for a drive system. Sub-space drive, which is useable for in system travel and also useable between stars depending on your ship and module of the drive. the drive would simply push the ship through a rift into subspace and would then drop your ship back into real space at the destination. you wouldn't be able to predict ships arriving on a scanner, they just arrive "out of nowhere" im thinking about making a countering system for bigger station that ships cant drop out in a certain area around it or even around a planet, the system would just force your ship to drop out if you get in the range of the device. out of range of weapons for probably both sides but in range for all scanners to pick up. the drive would use alot of fuel and power and is fairly slow on longer distances.
@@gringles thank you! its still gonna take a while, im writing on a basic thing for now as a trial cause im writing it in english (its not my main language) and then maybe write the finished (first) product.
@@fritzflitzsci-fi often does something similar for enforcing "No jump zones" with the simple concept of Gravity as the restriction factor. Gravity wells interfere with jump systems, and the bigger the gravity, the farther out your jump ends unless you want to critically risk potentially devastating results, ranging from exciting well off course in general to burning out your jump system, burning out your entire ship's systems, tearing your ship apart upon reentry into normal space, or even reappearing inside other solid matter like a ship, base, or planet, with catastrophic results... A small earth sized planet loose in interstellar space would force you out at extreme combat range, while a Sol sized system has enough distortion to guarantee a 10+ hour trip in normal space to reach earth if yo intend to stop and visit instead of flying by at combat speed... The Honor Harrington books handle this Really well
@@Shocktrue1 exactly what i thought, gravity and mass, also artificially mass locked by stations and well most orbital stations are near planets anyway.
The "Lost Fleet " series by Jack Campbell handles intership combat pretty realistically. They do use special pleading devices, such as inertial dampening, and two different versions of faster than light travel (hyperspace and teleportation of entire fleets of ships) But the in system battles take light speed lags of sensor information and intership communications as well as the physics of turning craft around to re-engage opponents while traveling at one tenth the speed of light. And the ships carry "rocks" ballistically shaped chunks of dense metals that they launch at planetary targets from the edge of star systems. The author maintains the suspense in the combat scenarios, but I'm not sure they would translate well to films or games.
It's actually pretty unrealistic. The problem Campbell fails to consider is that it would be trivial to maneuver defensively eg dodge at those sort of distances even if you are firing slugs at high fraction of c. Or intercept them with your own slugs even. If you have drives as efficient as the ones in the series it would be utterly trivial for military vessels to constantly shift their orbit. Which would massively reduce the distance at which you can reliably hit.
@XMysticHerox Have you read the books, because i think you may be misunderstanding how combat in them plays out. What you've said is literally pointed out in them. Dropping rocks can only be done for planetary bombardment (because planets can't dodge). Ship to ship combat only occurs at short range. With hours spent accelerating towards one another a 0.1c, and since their relative velocity is 0.2c engagements last a few nano seconds where they mostly just try to fire buckshot into the path of the other ship. And if one party doesn't want to engage in combat its basically impossible to do so, as they can just keep their distance. The self guided long range munitions (Spectre missles in canon) rarely every work because your opponent just shoots them down with mid range energy weapons (hell lances) or short range rail guns (buckshot)
This is a great series of books and the author really has thought out space combat in a way not readily considered in other sci fi settings. If you like sci fi with a strategic twist then this is a good shout. Also, probably some of the easiest books to read 😂
This!!! I shoulda scrolled a little farther before making my post about the Lost Fleet. I’m really enjoying this book series so far, even tho it kinda ruined space combat for me when I see classic dog fighting lol.
I'm fairly certain these reasons are why in Star Wars they jump in as close to the enemy as possible from a complete different star system, as their sensors can indeed detect even an x-wing across the star system. Giving the enemy fleet as little time to react as possible. And there are atmospheric battles too, which originally the larger ships could not enter atmosphere, they were just too large. And they have stealth ships as well for scouting and such.. it does make sense as to why they are not just shooting at each other from millions of kilometers away.
Not sure how he missed this one. Also I don’t recall Star Wars tech being able to detect anything more than a few hundred thousand kilometers away. Take Ahsoka for example: she was able to hide in a bone field. And the Eye of Sion wasn’t able to track or detect her ship
The thing about this video is that he took hard physic approach to sci-fi. With FTL, jumping, warping and shit, things would be different. When traveling in (some type of) FTL, you will be completely undetectable, bringing the cloud back to space combat. But it's not like Star Wars tactic is perfectly valid, like if they can send manned aircrafts in so close, why couldn't they just send a thousand nuclear missile, at least as a preliminary strike.
@@naravishthongnok5899 While I broadly agree with a lot of the points he brings up I think it's important to note that our current tech is designed for stealth on earth. To detect something in space you still have to give off emissions that would make you detectable and there are probably ways to mask your signature in a way that would still throw off sensors to some extent. Either that or you can deploy dummy signals around the system that might be difficult to rule out by sensor systems many AU away. Voyager isn't a great example anyway. Voyager was not designed to be undetectable - it gives off emissions - and we know exactly where it is to look for it. The sensors described here have perfect signal detection capabilities across a full spherical area and can immediately spot even the tiniest discrepancy from the typical background noise. I don't think that's actually as easy or simple as it's made out to be in this video. Finally, considering the backdrop here is Starfield, he ignores a rather relevant detail: the grav drive. People generally don't just fly around at sublight speeds across vast distances. You jump straight to the destination you want to by folding space. This is somewhat similar to other types of FTL travel that most space shows employ. So a lot of that 'closing distance' is eliminated by the ability to drop in within a reasonable distance from your target. Then it comes down to defensive capabilities and maneuverability. Of course the 'dodging lasers' bit is still a thing. Even an AI is going to be unable to really 'dodge' incoming laser fire. (Nevermind that you can't actually see incoming laser fire before it has already reached you anyway.) So it would be more about baffling sensors to throw off targeting at which point evasive maneuvers could still be effective. But a lot of those critiques do rely on sci-fi tech which may or may not be possible. Certainly, a lot of these critiques absolutely apply to a universe with sub-light travel and tech that's within the lines of what we know is possible.
In other words, it's the same reason why modern militaries still have ground forces when we could theoretically switch to drones and missiles only: because a more varied military capable of fighting a unilateral war is more likely to win.
Aka, dull. Dwarf Fortress in space. Alternately, it’s all in ship stuff like Alien. Which really puts the being in space way on the back burner to the point of not mattering.
As a scientist he forgot that games and pop culture are more about fun and spetacle than it is about realism... Not his fault here, but he did forgot to mentioned two important aspect of any space sim game... shields and gravity generators. I have in my Steam libreary a game called Starship Evo, the goal of this ship is just build ships from scratch (is much more in depth than the ship crafting system of Starfield. You can build a ship with many blocks you want and whatever size you want, but theres a set of parts that need to be in a ship, altough not essential parts, the shields (this actually are essential especially for combat ships) and the gravity generators are parts of the ship that does make a difference. The shiels are especilly efficient against solid objects, and the gravity generators besides allow us to walk straight on our ships also do the trick of fix the G forces while flying. And yeah, i know this sort of stuff isn't realistic but...
I loved Babylon 5's explanation of space stealth for Minbari craft: the sensor systems they used against Earthforce ships simply overpowered Earth's sensors. So we knew they were out there, but simply couldn't target them effectively. But then we found the solution with John "Nukem" sherridan where you just booby-trap the area with nukes that the Minbari simply weren't looking for.
that is basically how ECM works. people think that ECMs make you invisible, but its the opposite, it actually blinds the enemy sensor with an absurdly powerful signal. the problem however is that half of the galaxy will know where you are (well... eventually)
To this day my buddy gushes about how realistic the human fighters and ships in B5 were, especially for the time. I'm inclined to agree, the whole show holds up very well even now.
The Mimbari would have lasted three seconds against Earth if the writers had ever heard of anti-radiation missiles. If you’re pumping out that much electromagnetic radiation you’re a perfect target for a passive seeker. Jamming is like shining a flashlight in someone’s eyes in a dark room. Yeah, they’re blinded, but they have a real good idea where to toss the grenade if they can’t shoot at you. Jamming is like tracer bullets: “they work both ways.”
@joeatwood6905 You're assuming Minbari jamming works like ours do. They're the most technologically advanced Younger Race. It could work through completely different principles that humanity isn't aware of.
I'd also like to add an additional combat problem: Heat. I was listening to a NASA engineer talking about this. Despite space being quite cold it, because there is no atmosphere it is actually quite difficult to properly dissipate heat. So if you are using laser weapons against your opponent the heat you are imparting on their ship is way more of a problem then slicing a piece of it off. Eventually the staff on board one ship or the other would give up or pass out from heat exhaustion.
@@XMysticHerox Massive radiators sounds like a great target. Also bear in mind those radiators are depending on conversion to infrared light to release the heat.
Any warship in a realistic setting would already have to rely on radiators unless you introduce some fancy technobabble tech that means you don't (which is fine just not super hard sci fi).@@foxstele
@@XMysticHerox I don't get your point. Dissipating heat in space is hard. Of course they would have radiators. Problem is, depending on infrared transmission for heat dissipation is very inefficient. It is nothing like using a radiator in an atmosphere. As you scale your ship up I'm pretty sure the problem goes up at a square-cube rate.
The point is that ships would already have significant capacity for dispersing heat just to run their engine and fire their weapons. Worst case scenario they turn those of. Between that and ablative armour I don't really see lasers being able to disable the a ship through heat alone. As for a larger ship. Well no not really. Yes you have more volume per surface but as you mainly depend on radiators not the hull itself the square cube law does not matter much. @@foxstele
I've read that since space is a vacuum, and vacuums are perfect insulators, a lot of space combat would probably just be focusing heat rays at each other and seeing who cooks first, since it's very difficult to shed the heat you're receiving.
If you can make sufficiently strong lasers or fling objects at relativistic speeds, defense would be very hard for the target. Fights would be long range indeed.
Now I'm imagining hyperadvanced aliens having swarmships that are just mass hives of "Nanites", femtomachines, ect, and the whole ship can squirm writhe and reshape itself physically out of the path of any incoming weapon, or ablate sheets away from the core mass to mitigate laser spotlights / heatwaves. The swarm intelligently shuffling interior spaces around as it does so, or on the spot forming sealed compartments for passengers for temporary events or as an escapecraft. More interesting at least than "Fields" doing everything.
@@yemmohater2796true, radiation doesn't need a medium to shed energy, so a radiator could still work. however, it is FAR less efficient than if it was in a medium. The way the vast majority of heat is shed in a medium is because of the physical interaction between molecules. When two molecules in a medium bounce off each other, their energy equalizes. This process is pretty much instant, so think about just how many molecules are bouncing off each other at any given moment. That's why radiators and heat sinks work as well as they do, the increased surface area allows for greater interaction with a medium to either cool it down or warm it up.
With FTL drives, it adds another dimension to space combat. Being able to travel faster than light can mask your presence, as you will only be seen by the distance light takes to get there, and if you do a FTL jump, you're effectively invisible for the period of time light takes to get there.
Outrunning light in one direction doesn't mean light won't still bounce off you from every other direction. It might even be accelerated in the direction you're going.
@@BlueSatoshi It doesn't work this way. And it also depends on how FTL travel is done. If it's with a wormhole, then there's nothing to bounce off of except for a burst of radiation to indicate it. If it's warp, same thing. Light can't go faster than light.
@@BlueSatoshi Straight in front of you, you'll arrive before anything can detect you. Straight behind you, anything not also traveling faster than light can't reach you (so for example you can't be hit by laser weaponry). In other directions it depends on how much faster than light you're traveling.
Book I'm reading right now still has counters to this. You can detect the starting point of where a ship spun up their FTL drive and calculate their trajectory and likely point where they'll come out of FTL. There is only so much heat a ship of a certain mass can tolerate during FTL travel before it starts to melt itself or the crew. In the book this turns into an interesting cat and mouse game. The fleeing ship using FTL can use objects like a star, planet, moon, etc. to hide their FTL spinning up from a certain angle for short time. (But can't be too close to a gravity well to use FTL.) The chasing ship in turn only has to aim it's specialised FTL sensors along the right angel to detect where the fleeing ship starts and stops using FTL. The fleeing ship can in turn vary the times they come out of FTL and make slight adjustments to the angle they use FTL at to obscure their final destination and make it harder to follow follow-up FTL travel. The book is called: "To Sleep in a Sea of Stars" for anyone interested.
@@Handinmapocket "You can detect the starting point of where a ship spun up their FTL" this is already a pretty bad take imo. Without having omniscience-level technology you shouldn't be able to detect who entered ftl at the same time as they did it.
Everytime I watch an educational show about space combat, weapon systems are always discussed. But never defensive systems. Such systems would change how space warfare would actually be conducted. I would love to see a part two to this episode that would incorporate a good discussion of realistic defensive systems and how the model of space combat would change.
Realistically, every space battle is fatal for both parties. Missiles can easily generate far more kinetic energy than any hull could withstand, especially a hull that needs to be lightweight. No ship can carry enough lead to shoot down a thousand 1kg missiles. In space, offense easily swamps any possible defence. The guy who shoots first *might* survive, only if the other guy never shoots.
@@xizivejoneswouldn't the best way to deflect and disable a kinetic missile be another kinetic missile? In which case the survivor is the one with more missiles.
Check out the expanse. They got it right. Other than hacking attacks and redirecting incoming attacks with flack, there is essentially no such thing as defense in space. Your best bet is to get in a space suit, put the interior into vacuum, and just hope the shrapnel passes through a non critical part of the hull, and not you or your fuel tank. We would have to completely misunderstand physics for it to be any use at all. If you want something that that’s defensive options, but only one unrealistic magic technology (Mass drives), I’d recommend Mass Effect’s codex. They put so much creative, grounded work into thinking about this issue.
@@Tinyvalkyrie410 one of the issues I have with the expanse is that the treat metal as an infinite resource. Every bullet shot into the void or ship lost is metal gone forever. Asteroid mining can only produce so much and metal is becomes more valuable when in space travel is possible.
The expanse had space combat pretty well nailed. A fleet downing another fleet halfway across the solar system. Rogue factions hurtling asteroids at earth. Small raiding ships with rail guns and nuke torpedos. What a show it was.
Well looking at it, it isn't if we invented all the tech used in the expanse tomorrow yes but with lasers technology being possible any of these weapons are gonna be useless except maybe pdcs
This video reminds me of a scene in a Honor Harrington book, where the main character is talking to cadets at the Space Academy. It's not about hiding as a way to make yourself *invisible*, but it's about using deception, bluffs, and electronic warfare to make your ships look like something they're not.
Yes. Misdirection and blinding are both totally valid tactics. Hiding a raider crew on a ship that is supposedly a refugee vessel or a cargo ship is quite legitimate. On the other hand, simply glaring a multi-frequency laser into the face of whomever is trying to look at you will certainly not prevent them from knowing exactly where you are, but it may make it quite difficult for them to ascertain important details about you that they would really like to know before it's too late...
@@VastinIf you blinded another ship's view of your ship with lasers they'd probably just assume bad faith, alert everyone in the system, and send homing missiles in your direction.
The most novel space combat I've seen depicted is in the Jack Campbell (John G Hemry) The Lost Fleet series. Space battles would occur at relativistic speeds (fractions of c), and the ammunition was basically just kinetic slugs launched at high speed. Engagements only last fractions of a second, and relied on being able to predict enemy fleet positions millions of km apart.
Makes no sense tbh. The very obvious counter would be to maneuver randomly. There is literally no way to predict that no matter what sort of insane supercomputer you have. The range of unguided munitions in space will always be limited by the enemies ability to manuever defensively. Even at relativistic speeds there is no way to hit reliably at millions of km unless you are bringing an absurd amount of firepower. Not to mention that being able to accelerate a slug to fractions of c is some pretty out there tech.
@@XMysticHerox well yeah they didn't hit much without closing with the enemy. Flying past at massive speeds, encounters last "fractions of a second" as stated.
Even that is pretty out there. Doing flybies at relativistic speed is very out there. You'd have to either travel at interstellar speeds and then somehow maneuver into an intercept once you arrive in a system where you only get one shot at it. And for all that effort you have literally zero advantage because the enemy hits just as hard. Or you have weapons that can fire projectiles at relativistic speeds from a relative standstill. Which is completely absurd. Thats complete science fantasy. Which is not to say it is a bad book series. I just wouldn't hold it up as an example of realistic space combat. Like a lot of military sci fi it is science fantasy essentially on the level of Star Trek but dressed up in a gritty theme that makes it feel realistic. Which is fine again. Just not a portrayal of probable, realistic space warfare under our current understanding of physics. @@jasonwinzenried1115
This is why I loved the space combat in The Expanse. It was treated very realistically, and I felt that added a tension that you don't get from stylized combat. And just remember, there actually is a good reason why they didn't use lasers - heat. Another thing the movies tend to get wrong. The problem isn't the cold of space, it's being able to dissipate heat. And energy weapons generate a LOT of heat. This is why they were still using projectile weapons.
That's addressed in some works. In Saberhagen's Berserker universe, the really powerful beam weapons are on planets where they can use whole seas for cooling.
The heat problem is also at least mentioned in passing in "Mass Effect", and "Elite:Dangerous", where, depending on loadout, heat management can be more important than power management. @@robertmiller9735
The Expanse's ships relationship with the heat is... weird, TBH. They don't use lasers because they generate too much heat, but at the same time their engines should generate enough heat when thrusting to vaporize the entire ship with generated heat ten times over (I think somebody calculated the energy Epsten drive generates being somewhere in the petawatt ranges?).
8:11 In the Japanese Anime Space Battleship Yamato, the enemy also redirects small objects towards Earth, namely from the Kuiper Belt, in a way to bomb earth from a distance earth cannot defend.
@@debott4538 Today? Not really. Even a nuclear weapon can only destroy objects of certain sizes. The best option would be to try to use disposable satellites to change the trajectory of objects. If an asteroid or Kuiper Object the same size as the Chicxulub object that wiped out the dinosaurs were to be on a collision course with Earth, that would be our best option since even the Tsar Bomba wouldn't even dent that thing. Just like nuking a mountain: You can take a sizeable chunk, but the mountain is still gonna be there, albeit with a decent sized crater in its side.
@@theminerwithin9316 No, not today for sure. I was thinking about a sci-fi universe where Earth possesses space defenses. IRL, an asteroid redirect takes at least a year or more for planning building and execution.
And dodging lasers would require you to have detectors that operate at FTL. The laser hits you at the same time the light hits you to inform you to dodge, no matter how far you are from the source of the laser beam.
Pretty sure most modern sci-fi (haven't played Starfield though) deals with lasers by ways of messing with targeting systems or sci-fi shields and such. Technically even Star Wars doesn't necessarily use lasers (and some other kind of projectiles, like plasma or something similar) but then again, SW is just a fantasy story in a soft space-age setting and counting all handwaving examples from it would take ages.
A small ship could still dodge by randomly accelerating in different directions, at far enough distances the big ship's information could be a quarter second out of date and it could take a quarter second for a laser to hit the smaller ship giving the smaller ship time to move out of the way of what the big ship might be shooting at it. Combine that with technology that makes the ship harder to spot (insulating the ships interior so the surface puts out less heat, painting it black less of the suns light reflects off of it, and using shapes that reflects radar or lidar away from its sources) and a group smaller harder to hit ships that is mostly engines and a guns could be more effective than a larger slower, easier to spot and hit ship.
You wouldn't use lasers to "cut" or make holes in the ships as lasers have ranges due to how lenses and optics work. And those aren't that large as Kyle suggests. Anyway, you would use lasers, microwaves and others to "cook" living things on spaceships. As the only way you loose heat is via radiating it away, which is slow. Just look at things like ISS, it has larger radiators to dissipate heat then their solar panels. And shooting things will require you to have internal heat collectors which will add mass to the ship and then insanely huge radiators, which you will not be using while in "combat". As damaged or destroyed radiators means getting slowly cooked by the sun and life support systems. I suspect first designed combat craft will play of a game of cat and mouse, "dropping" (you wouldn't want to launch them to absorb heat) missiles from your ship and "seeding" the enemies path with debris to heat the armor up and overwhelm their cooling capacities. Similar to how early subs needed to surface after few hours of "combat" for air, these ships will need to use radiators to dissipate heat. And you wouldn't bee able to use rapid fire weapons in space as they create enormous amounts of heat. Like miniguns getting red hot in a few seconds of shooting, it would take hours to cool it down if not days. Oh and don't forget things like metal welding in space and others things we can't think of.
While this would be true, lasers likely wouldn't be an exceptionally practical weapon to use for most ships. Keeping the coherence of a laser for things like communications over the vast distances of space is possible. Keeping enough coherence at those ranges to actually melt through the shielding on another ship would be an entirely different order of magnitude. A laser powerful enough to *quickly* damage another ship would have to be so powerful that the ship it emanated from would basically melt. Otherwise, as soon as a laser was detected hitting your ship, you could simply start to rotate your ship around an arbitrary axis, making the laser never have enough contact with a particular spot to produce that much heat. In addition, if you couldn't near-instantly melt through the opposing ship, said ship would likely begin evasive maneuvers, which means you'd only have that single initial shot have decent accuracy. You'd then have to rely on computers to attempt to predict where the ship would have moved to, until ranges closed significantly.
Actually dodging lasers would be done exactly the way planes 'dodge' bullets in real dogfights or soldiers 'dodge' bullets on a real battlefield while moving - you jig and change course randomly and frequently. Assume the laser can and will be coming at you at any moment, and make yourself hard to hit regardless. If you get unlucky, you get unlucky and you die. If you get close enough to the enemy that your random course corrections can no longer realistically get you out from under their beam or projectile trajectory, you die.
The Honor Harrington book series by David Weber actually does space navies really well. Things like ship class and armor matter. Missles are dependant on tracking and electronic warfar capabilities. The ships evolved due to the tactics and technology available. Definitely worth a read
Even they have fighters C-LACs turn the war. His argument is bad and dumb. There are multiple reasons both in physics terms and strategically to have “space fighters”
- Dropped in to mention the Honorverse. For all the legit MarySue criticisms, I loved the battle scenes. Hypervelocity smart missiles and klnetic dumb bombs but realistic inertial issues with getting your capital ships up to speed and maneuvering. Trying to evade an incoming swarm that's many thousands of K's out... and still hours away. 😳 In naval terms .. like a battle using slow but very long range torpedos, but you're all sailing large oared Galleys! 😜
@@jimg5669She is Hornblower in space. It does not make it a bad thing. The Saganami Island tactical simulator board game is interesting but is a bit too much math for me.
I showed up just to say this very thing. Weber gets space combat about as good as possible within the bounds of his system of technology and real physics. Even to the point of evolving tech that renders previous tactical doctrine obsolete and forces navies to update both tactics and tech to keep up. It's a realistic combo of fighting with math, tech, resources, and logistics. He even makes engagement times of days and hours exciting to read...would love to see Honor Harrington on screen and done right, but we probably never will.
I've always maintained that more realism in games doesn't equal more fun. The entire point of a game is to be able to do things you could not irl. Even simulations only take it so far, because too much realism is not fun.
That sounds like such a naive and childish way to look at video games, and Growling Sidewinder would probably disagree as well, seeing how he loves playing that near military grade flight simulator. Games shouldnt just be escapism, rather people should learn how to stop making life so horrible.
@@storysearch9432Exactly. I would add fun is such a bad word for this stuff anyway. Fun is a dopamine hit. Not everyone needs every game be for a hit. Is Flight Simulator played by serious player not fun? Is flying real life airplane not fun? Maybe not - but it's enjoyable, relaxing, etc. So yeah, @ChadeGB, actually, we can't fly spaceships in real life so a totally realistic-as-possible space sim is totally what some people, including me, really want, because it's not irl and I can only imagine or dream such a life. I'll still play "fun" stuff like a Star Wars video game, and there's nothing wrong with that, but having ONE great realistic space sim is still an unobtained holy grail for many of us. We want the experience, not shallow "fun." More of ANY one thing probably doesn't equal more fun - it's all about the game being designed well as a whole to make the target audience like it and keep playing it.
@@ThisCanBePronounced And thats without mentioning the communicative aspects that making art in that media could have, with subtext, exploration of concepts and characters, subtle relation of ideas and stories to the lives of the audience, provoking thought and reflection, etc. Disco Elysium is one of my favorite games because the people who created it had things that they really wanted to express about life, and you feel those messages in that game, without it getting ham-fisted. I hope it never gets a sequel
@@darealmaul No, you didnt make it, you just purchased it for 79.99 or whatever price it is. Thats when you say you as an individual are supposed to determine what you get out of the thing you bought. Its the person who makes the thing who is supposed to determine what they put into the video games. Whether thats meaningful or not is ultimately up to them. But im sure youd agree, its rather reductive to simply state that the purpose of video games is and should have always been about fun. Simply another way our capitalistic society twists something that should be meaningful into something that simply exists to be bought by lovers of the superficial and convenient, the apathetic and the just plain useless people who devote their lives to these sorts of distracting toys
Two comments: 1.) Unmanned, remote- or AI-guided fighter ships would be very effective in a space battle: The enemy has to deal with lots of small targets, and every small target is a separate drain on the enemy's resources. 2.) A human can't evade a laser weapon because the laser is undetectable until it hits you: It travels at the speed of, well, ya know,
@@Nobody-dl9zb1wt5light is the speed of information. When the computer detects the laser it would have been hit at the same time. Also on because science on space battles he explains that you can hit a target. Simply saying "get a better computer" is futile. Using ftl communication or computers leaves behind paradoxes similar to past travel making it inconsistent so no unless you are in an alternate universe with altered universal laws.
Part of the reason I love The Expanse series so much. Limitations of craft more often come down to the people over the ship. The craft might be able to pull 20g acceleration, but humans will more than likely die of a stroke at half of that. Ship to ship combat is mostly long range weapons with maneuverabilty to dodge incoming projectiles. It's a race to see either who can drop the hammer on the enemy faster, or who's got the endurance to outrun a pursuer.
Exactly. And the nuclear missiles (no reason not to use them in space combat, since fallout is a non-issue) were much faster and more maneuverable than any manned craft could ever be. Successfully dodge one and it just turns around for another attempt. All you can do is hope that your point defense cannons can take out all the missiles before one hits you. Maneuvering just buys the PDCs more time.
@@MrClickity Cost, time of production, availability of raw, means to process materials. IRL, someone is going to have to see you as an immense threat and have no less costly means to neutralize you to send a nuke after you. I could see the potential of a kinetic missile that seeks to collide with a target then go back and land where the sender can retrieve it for reuse.
Funnily enough, your scenario reminded me a lot of Children of a Dead Earth which is very much a physics-based space combat simulation including usage of gravity wells and the like to get in position as well as fire your weapons. Worth checking out and it gets HARD quickly.
One thing CoaDE does not depict well are: sensors and Electromagnetic Warfare in general. Hell, your missiles don't even need sensors to find their targets, they just know at all times where it is, allowing you to cover their noses in meters of composite armour without consequences, which is very unrealistic to say the least.
One of the things I liked about Firefly is that even though they were in space, they were still using bullets in their guns and projectile weapons in space.
Battlestar Galactica seemed to focus more on a realistic approach to space combat. The viper had external ports that shot out propellant of some sort, and they were located all around the ship. With this approach It seem they would be able to micro adjust for maneuverability aspects. As far as munitions, I think solid projectiles were used they didn’t have lasers.
The most accurate space combat I saw in anything was in Forever War. I dunno what its respective influences were, but basically everything was just launching munitions at relativistic speeds through vast expanses of space and them trying to figure out how they were going to cope with that physically.
Super Dimensional Fortress Macross it not bad in space battles if you take out the Armoured suits but they are mostly used how you would expect and mostly realistic until they get later in
For good descriptions I think you need sf books, not movies. Cholewa's Algorithms of War describe space combat excellently, more similar to submarine maneuvering. No visibility, silent running, torpedoes but at extremely long ranges, sprays as anti-laser defence.
Even modern day, we have destroyers lobbing missiles from hundreds of miles away. Modern air combat is all BVR, where it’s just lobbing BVR missiles at each other, and also lobbing stand-off weapons from BVR. Modern vehicular/vessel combat as dictated by modern weapons now rarely happens within visual range. Also loved the Hyperion series, where engagement ranges are across entire planetary systems.
Majority of modern conflicts have been a superior foe against an inferior foe without proper defences. So we have limited knowledge on the reality of defencive capabilites but if the defence industry has anyhting to say about it they are nearing a point of overtaking the capabilities of offensive weapons thanks to new tech. US Patriot defences managed to take down Russian super sonic kinsals which as raised worries from China and other nations that the status quoe of MAD is now in question if the US would actually be capable of taking down ICBM's. New anti missile defences are reaching a point where they can track and take down hundreds of incoming targets with high accuracy even if hostile weapons have countermeasures. A lot of modern computers have enough power to be able to be linked with a defence system and could track and take down fast moving targets.
@@kenji214245 Taking down 1-2, even 20 ICBM warheads was possible back in 60's. The problem was always that for every launcher you can buy enemy can buy 10 ICBMs.
I always saw space combat like the age of the dreadnoughts. Firing long shots at each other and eather taking someone out of action or reaching the end of their operational limits.
Probably. Missiles likely wouldn't work in an environment where you can theoretically see them coming from an infinite distance away and just laser 'em, so we'd be back to lobbing big chunks of metal at ludicrous speeds.
@@colbyboucher6391 You would use missiles to deploy "minefields" in space in enemy trajectories so they would need to dodge the crap they spilled. Doing couple of kilometers per second and meeting a couple of centimeter sphere in your path going at the same speed of at a fraction of a c. Would make anything we can make little more then wet paper.
@@colbyboucher6391 Kinda depends on how far we extend the tech level. Because once tech level gets higher you get more fanciful sensors, but you also get more fanciful ways of ECM confusing those sensors which makes missiles more survivable. We can take out incoming missiles today with water navy ships, yet missiles are still the preffered way of making an attack that doesn't use airpower. And you overcome the defences by shooting a LOT of missiles to overwhelm the point defence. Similar would likely apply. As a bonus missiles also have the ability to correct their course for course changes that any fleet in combat will likely be doing excatly to limit the ability of the enemy to get them easily with unguided kinetics. On the other hand kinetics would be absolutely lethal once ships close in to ranges where acceleration is insufficient to alter the vector enough for the ship to move out of the path. On the gripping hand, missile or a solid shot in space are pretty much a same thing if they weight approximately the same. A ship is just as capable of giving them that initial speed. A missile is just a projectile that can do some basic course correction. And unless we are talking about basically space grapeshot both are as spottable.
Of course in near future setting, everything will be VERY fragile because low mass would be VERY important if we are burning the conventional chemical rockets. So pretty muhc anything works as a weapon. Including basically firing grapeshot AKA Kessler Syndrome Starter.
This is actually a little bit like how space combat is described by Alistair Reynolds in Revelation Space: the combat takes place over several lightminutes of range, largely using relativisticly accelerated masses to prevent evasion and fast accelerating high-g missiles to attempt the kill.
"Three Body Problem" has a very good description of a space battle that matches your characterization. Cosmic Piracy is like trying to steal cargo from a moving train. "Dune" shows quite realistic laser weapons.
Just a heads up if you're considering buying a Holzkern watch: Holzkern has a decent mechanism inside, but the watches themselves can be a little fragile at times. They use wood in a few sections and that can weaken it a little. They do have some really nice designs, and I've heard many good things about them but my experience with Holzkern was not the best in terms of longevity. If you love the styles they have then totally go for it! If you want something a little higher quality for the same price you could look into brands like Citizen, Orient or Seiko. Just some food for thought. Anyways: great video as always Kyle!
There was an indie game called "children of a dead earth" several years back that focused on realistic physics and orbital mechanics. I never did try it myself though.
it makes a lot of wrong assumptions and is far from realistic, but it is one of the "better" options basically requires tons of technical knowledge to play though, and half of actual hard sci-fi stuff isn't even possible to do lasers are also miserable, being stuck with 1970s technologies kinetic weapons are somewhat viable, which is pretty magical in itself missiles are apparently a pain to use according to every player I've met, and just instantly despawn upon running out of propellant detection systems are also not modelled at all, and contrary to popular belief, stealth in space is possible in specific circumstances and assumptions
A game that did this really well is Children Of a Dead Earth. A lot of the combat is missles launched from out of plane and capital ships wizing past eachother while blasting away at eachother.
Yeah, in my opinion "Children Of A Dead Earth" does a really good job of portraying how DIFFERENT space combat would be with our current technology. It ends up being this interesting situation where it can take MONTHS to reach your target, and the speeds that the ships move at while in orbit often lead to combat only lasting for a couple of brief seconds. And you had better hope that you made the right choice in sending ships to attack because it's not like you can just turn your ships around to have them return. If you're lucky you could find another object to hopefully give a gravity assist for a return, but otherwise you'll have to stay committed to your original plan of attack and then use the gravity assist from that object to return.
11:26 Warframe solves the airlock problem with ramsleds, boarding craft meant to breach enemy ships and make their own entrance. Basically the missile idea, plus they solve the killbox issue by detonating breaching charges that knock down defenders and clear debris.
I am a longtime mecha anime fanboy, and one of the things about real robot shows is that they normally have some kind of reason or explanation why their tech is relevant. I could see something like space fighters or pirates being relevant if they invented some kind of stealth tech but it can only hide small ships. But again that involves suspending disbelief and a touch of fantasy.
As far as space combat goes, I rather have the rule of cool approach hahahaha. Love mecha, and my favorites are the beam sword types, super inefficient and unrealistic, but so cool
In Battletech universe the reason for mechs is the invention of artificial muscles that contract as if they were your own. In MW Mercenaries 5 I actually see them in the limbs, if the armor is blown off. It gives the feeling that limbs can still work unless you tear through the entire muscle, unlike an unlucky hit in a servo of a conventional biped mecha design. Also the convention bans the pragmatic approach of nuking planets from the orbit, so in a sense the setting itself admits that there are artificial limitations in warfare that make sense the use of mechs
I do think it's interesting how vulnerable ships in gundam end up being throughout the various series. They're still used because carrier doctrine and great weapons platforms, but the idea that essentially the most effective fighter is a dude in a big space suit is kinda believable. They also do stealth with dummy asteroids and the like which also makes sense. Kinda how in battletech the concept of elementals changed how ground wars were fought.
Children of a dead earth has probably the most realistic space combat I can think of. You can build an Diamond, Aerogel and Kevlar composite armor with a configurable spacing between them.
One thing CoaDE does not depict well are: sensors and Electromagnetic Warfare in general. Hell, your missiles don't even need sensors to find their targets, they just know at all times where it is, allowing you to cover their noses in *meters* of composite armour without consequences, which is very unrealistic to say the least.
@@peasant8246 A sequel of that game is well deserved. I'd love to see the mechanics expanded and the visual style evolved. Unfortunate that it'll never happen though
@@The4j1123 I believe the developer has returned and said he's working on a new project set in CoaDE universe. See if you can find the post where he's talking about it.
Having played the B5 game "We've Found Her", I can say that playing space fighter sims like you were flying in atmosphere is massively easier than real world physics. While the game was a fun diversion, I spent more time trying to change the direction of my motion than I did with my weapons on target.
12:40 man this reminded me of one of our DnD games,we played a futuristic type of game with costum rules and we got attacked by a bunch of automated drones.
Babylon 5’s Star Fury is one of the very few small spacecraft designs that actually looks like it was realistically designed to be manoeuvrable and agile while operating in a vacuum, as anyone who’s seen it will appreciate.
I like the take on space combat from the Honor Harrington books. The tactics reverted to the 18th century with ships of the line volleying missiles at each other from across a solar system
Technological assumptions has to be extremely contrived to justify that. Honorverse tech is in no way "hard science fiction". Harder that Star Trek and Star Wars maybe, but still pretty soft.
Honestly, in a realistic setting, some of the most valuabe tactics would be predictive engines and disguising techniques. If you can predict an attack, you can drastically improve your ability to evade or counter. If you can disguise yourself, you've essentially created space stealth.
Instead of stealth I'd expect decoys and perhaps jamming. I also wonder if deliberately deploying debris fields could be used to limit the speed of approaching objects, making them easier for a defense system to engage.
If your enemy used laser for point defence, and your long range weapons are missiles, it would highly behoove you to send in some initial missiles that are just full of highly refractive dust. Enemy can't effectively hit your missiles if they are shooting through dust that diffuses the beam. Speaking of decoys, debris, and laser-jamming dust; of all the scifi to consider and implement that, it was Gundam. They did a lot of dumping fake asteroids, fake mechs, real debris and active jamming. They also readily make use of clouds of dust to deplete all sorts of directed energy weapons too. It's almost ironic that a franchise centered around close-in dogfights in giant humanoid robots also had all the rest too.
Decoys won't work. The plume will give away their mass. And if you're building a fleet of decoys with the same mass and drive of your ship, you might just as well have a fleet-still no stealth, though. From _Atomic Rockets > Space War > Detection > All Right! I'll Use Decoys!:_ "Problem is, the rate (i.e. velocity) at which the plasma is coming out, manifests itself as a doppler shift in the characteristic emission lines of the plasma. As soon as a dedicated tracking sensor focuses on the target for a second or two, the game is up. If the plasma is coming out fast, it can't help but produce thrust proportional to mass flow rate (manifested as luminosity) times velocity (doppler). If the plasma is coming out slow (or fast but in opposing directions), it will be seen to be coming out slow and thus be recognized as not a real engine. Conservation of momentum doesn't leave much room to hide thrust, or lack thereof, in a visible exhaust plume. If you know how much exhaust there is and how fast it is moving, you know how much thrust is being produced, period. Thrust estimation by observing plume properties is in fact a common procedure in laboratory testing of plasma thrusters, and while it's no substitute for a direct mechanical thrust measurement it will certainly provide the sort of order-of-magnitude values needed for decoy discrimination."
@@fsmoura that's where strats come in decoys don't have to be fully just decoys they could be turrets or missile launchers that look like your ships and meet 1 or 2 out of 3 of the things sensors use to identify fighter crafts. If enemy has mass, heat and velocity detection just give them the same thrusters they will have the same heat and velocity but not the same mass which would confuse your target to either deal with them or the smaller set of fighter craft that meet all 3 fully confirming what they are to their sensors. Then your decoys get into visible/attack range after being ignored and their actually carrying mines or nukes or just outright be their own missile launcher system and now your target is forced to engage them as well or they blow up with emp or other sensor jamming particles and maybe even missile disabling tech or beam dispersal tech and you have a field where your fighter crafts can safely approach from.
@@AGleeBustHard69 That's not 'stealth in space,' that's just 'having a fleet.' And that hypothetical is just 'ignoring a fleet of spaceships coming to attack you.' There's no 'visible range.' _Everything_ is visible all the way through. Detection will precede combat by months/years. There's also no fighters in space.
Have you guys seen Battlestar Galactica.. One of the creators of BSG was consulting on space fights in the Expanse.. I frikkin love BSG and The Expanse was also good. :)
i seen battlestar galactica for the first time like 4 years ago. it shot up to my top 3 favorite shows. im trying to get my brother to watch it@@dusermiginte4647
Some of the more hardcore science fiction stories immerse the crew in fluid, letting the crew breath oxygenated fluids. As many fluids don't compress, any saturated crewmember should likewise, not compress. I don't know how accurate that actually is, but one science fiction story, 'The Forever War' made great use of that.
@@DelverRootnose I’m not a doctor, but I am a pilot, and that doesn’t sound like it would make any difference. Fluid in your lungs instead of air wouldn’t change the g forces your body, and all its organs, experience.
I'm still a big fan of the whole "WWII dogfight in space" trope so I would be sad to see it go away, but I would like to also see games/tv/movies that further investigate other ways these things could play out based on real science, much like how the Expanse kind of walks the line between realistic and exciting space combat. I would def. watch a series of video where you break down classic space combat scenes from games and movies and depict the "correct" way those engagements would have gone with real science. This kind of stuff is fascinating to learn and you do a great job.
In my Sovereign Species series, the classic Sci-Fi Star Wars space battles will be proper battles, simply due to the sheer number of ships the combatants bring, whilst the more realistic space battles will be "Skirmishes" that take place after such engagements are either won or lost, and it's more a siege on both sides decided by who will be able to hold out the longest. The ships *can* hide, but they have so many of them that they can use them to fight climactic decisive battles and cause devastation, and for certain factions, production rates are *shockingly* fast. And space fighters will take on harrassing/support roles for the bigger ships, or, in the Aldokk's case, spam so many drones that the Arek are forced to fight both them and their own vessels at the same time.
The benefit of a small ship isn’t that it can “dodge” laser fire, but that it is harder to aim across a large field of view. Assuming a similar laser weapon range before the laser decoheres too much to be damaging, the smaller ship is much harder to hit - not because it dodges, but because the size of it in the field of view is smaller and thus requires more precision to hit.
Some of the science fiction books I've read address the problem of seeing each other from across the solar system. They usually make it so you can detect them, but they detect you too and will deploy jamming and decoys. The fighters they use to get closer and deliver a payload. The fighters get up to speed, turn off the engines, and then turn on jamming to hide. The people inside are to make last second decisions and adjust what the computers got wrong. I really liked these battles
The ships in Starfield are not small due to any of the reasons which you listed. They are small because they land in gravity wells. The more massive the ship, the more thrust it takes to liftoff, which requires more fuel. It is simply a factor of the cube-square law. The UC Vigilance, a capital ship too large to land in a gravity well, exists and is realistically unbeatable by any of the small ships.
It's not a good idea to think about Starfield excuses with any rational intellectual vigor. There is no Delta V in this game world. Fuel is only used for FTL grav jumping. The game straight up states in plain text that fuel is not needed for landing, making orbit, or interplanetary travel within a system. If your big ship is too big for something, it's making it to another star system, not landing. The spaceship builder design mechanics make that very clear. Even after you make your grav jump, or sequence of consecutive jumps between systems without having to interact with the menu again, your fuel tanks instantly refill without any need to get fuel from anywhere. This game has some of the worst science fiction I've ever read. It's space toddler stories for a concept of reality. To be clear, I don't mean stories for a toddler so that they don't further question what's going on, I mean stories conceived of and told by a toddler to make you think it wasn't them that used all the chocolate syrup, while their face and hands are clearly covered and sticky with chocolate goop. To even begin to believe anything, you have to ignore every single gameplay mechanic that blatantly disagrees with what you find in books, on computers, and in the dialogue of NPCs. The entire range of your potential actions are non-canon in this universe. Bethesda could not provide a universe where is the things you do make sense in that universe, if that Universe involves guns or space, or physics I think. Starfield guns aren't as embarrassing as Fallout 4 guns, in terms of looking like they were designed by a 5-year-old. Starfield guns are like cargo cult level design, where parts that look like real guns that might work in some scenarios are arranged together in a way that doesn't relate to how guns work. If you ignore the actions or potential actions of a player, the world building isn't as bad, unless you think about it for a moment in which case it still doesn't make sense. My personal headcanon to deal with all of this is basically the opposite: only the things the player does are real, and everything that is written down or spoken by an NPC is some kind of a lie that may have been passed down by generations to keep people stupid and prevent them from trying to live in any way outside of their theme park NPC concentration camps.
You are kind of missing the point... What the video is saying is you don't need a relatively small 1 person ship when you can have a huge starship with hundreds of crew, and weapons... More importantly, you won't do any kind of dog fight, instead you get hundreds of missiles like in an Ace Combat game on your ass, if not instantly exploding from lasers. And "Gravity Well" is really a misused term, but sure, even if that limits ship size, the main argument of "no dog fighting " still stands, and you still will just get missiles and lasers homed in on you with almost no way to dodge. Really one thing Spaceships don't do is sharp turns ...
Yes, I want realistic portrayals of space (your example at the end sounds like it would be a fantastic resource management game), but I also want magic space WW2 sometimes.
I think the biggest flaw with this video is it assumes that we have perfected space flight but not FTL or some kind of other transport like the hyperspace from Babylon 5 where ships can't be tracked from normal space, so there would still be an argument for space pirates and drone ships because a hostile could just appear right on top of you and launch a wave of drone fighters and quickly overwhelm any defenses you had, and in space warfare lasers would be utterly useless and easily defeated simply by coating your ship in a mirror surface a shield if you will and you could then angle that panel to fire the laser right back or simply constantly rotate your ship so the laser is never concentrated on one spot , or you could simply use a prism to redirect the laser
Mirrors are not effective laser defence. It would just melt the mirror, you'd instead want something like the space shuttle tiles that is an amazing insulator
@@Staladus lol no, You do understand that mirrors are use all the time in high power lasers right, when i say mirrors i am not talking about the the kind in your bathroom that reflect at most 85% of the light no I am talking about lab grade mirrors that bounce 99.9% of light you know the kind actively used in lab and military lasers .... meaning that only 0.01% of light gets through to generate heat the other 99.9% is reflected, so no a laser would not simply burn through a mirror. Space ship tile on the other hand would be gone in seconds as they would absorb 100% of the laser and yep there are TH-cam videos about it and testing it, shuttle tiles only work because they hold back the heat long enough to allow the ship to survive the time it takes for re-entry and before heat soak gets to the soft inner, point to note is that space tiles only hold back temps of about 2000c and only for a short time where as current military lasers will heat the target to hotter than thew sun on beam contact so over 5500c, meaning that that tile would fail almost immediately where as a laser grade mirror would only absorb the equivalent of about 1c hence why they are used in current high lower lasers
@@EQINOX187 hm fair enough, my only concern now is that covering your ship entirely in mirrors would make maintenence a hell I imagine. Cuz theyll constantly get hit by micrometeorites and stuff which will reduce its effectiveness. The James Webb telescope's mirrors have been hit a ton, and while its had minimal impact on its image quality, I imagine itd become weakpoints when hit with a giant laser
All good points with one omission. In Starfield, you grav-drive into one of the planets in the system so you wouldn't be seen until you just appeared out of no where. So this would lend itself to being a surprise attack or being attacked by pirates lurking.
Thank you. I get there's a lot wrong with Starfield when it comes to immersion the more you know, but grav-jumping is faster than the light speed which means faster than your sensors with a good enough grav-drive you're jumping further than the maximum range of sensors. And before any space nerds comment yes I know nothing with mass is capable of moving faster than light. Not going to try and avoid lasers cause all they do is fuck with your shields. Like bro, I'm not trusting a ship that can be blown up by lasers in space when I have to fly close to some massive stars that would be giving off more heat or radiation than a laser. Why even bring up lasers when we have particle weapons? Those are easily a much more terrifying weapon that seems to be a literal particle accelerator. And even the whole thing about the effects of turning fast like Poe isn't entirely correct. Sure if we did that it would probably go exactly how he described. But no one from Starfield is from Earth. They all grew up on different planets, with different degrees of gravity affecting them which would dramatically change how their bodies worked. Not to mention that most of the ships in Starfield move slower than modern-day jets which would also be less g's you'd have to deal with.
@@soulsnatcher9696 Grav drives don't break physics because they're not traveling faster than light, They compress spacetime to make a "Warp Bubble" Of all the scifi in Starfield, It's the most legit.
@@Celphirio You do know that asteroids, though fast, take a LONG time to get anywhere, right? Like, you literally lost more money waiting to rob that cargo ship than you could get out of it.
@@soulsnatcher9696 For there to be humans that have developed in non-earth environments long enough to evolve to adapt to them, humans first have to: a) get there (possible enough) b) survive the environment long enough to have enough generations (many) to adapt to it (ie: they dead) Humans aren't going to survive on a planet with significantly increased gravitational forces long enough to evolve traits that adapt to it. Not unless it somehow is done across a chain of hundreds of planets over thousands of years, slowly increasing the human limit for each new planet. And if that's the case... it's not even worth considering since it's too far into the unknown of what would really happen. Perhaps we are already lizards by that point or figured out how to just become pure energy via tech.
@@JarieSuicune tell me you didn't play the game without telling me you didn't play the game they have been on multiple planets for multiple generations enough for two wars to happen, a whole group of settlers to get lost form a cult raises an army to start another war get beat and leave come back and become the negotiators for a completely different War, multiple teramorph attack that only happen every 70 years of a new settlement, the creation and banishment of mechs with ai (literal Titanfall), it's been like 800 something years since they left earth and no earthling was left because planet go bye bye. The ship that got lost literally drifted in space meaning there's a whole group of human adapted to space it's a whole character trait and everything. And gravity isn't an issue they literally use gravity to rip a hole in the fabric of space and fast travel to different star systems my guy. It's call a grav-drive faster then light speed travel. Like I get your point and I agree it was a hang up for me cause we definitely visit planets with way more intense gravity then earth, till I realized they use gravity to travel at the speed of light. How did they unlock this technology play the game and find out it's free on game pass you don't even have to pay Bethesda.
So, as a general physicist and sci-fi writer myself, I’m fascinated by this topic (read Alistair Reynolds’ Revelation Space series for some really interesting and accurate examples). That said, there are ways to frame it where you don’t need to disrespect the media that so many people enjoy, or imply that they’re somehow wrong for doing so.
I mean people come to his house and in his house he can criticise/mock every media/product he likes. People are free to leave or criticise him for it and then there're people like me who are free to defend Kyles choice to criticise/mock said Media/Product🤷♂️ anyway you got my like for the other things you said and I'm gonna look into that book ty🙂
I think it all depends on what kind of universe you want to create. If you want hard sci-fi, this kind of realism could be really interesting if implemented well. It could also be interesting in less hard sci-fi settings. But that doesn't mean you can't still also have settings like Star Wars, where realism is really not the point. I consider Star Wars more fantasy than sci-fi, and I think it's perfectly fine to have a "space fantasy" setting. That said, great video, you are definitely right when it comes to the realism
Thank you for pointing this out! The point of good Sci-fi isn't to be ultra realistic, it's to make commentary on the human condition. You can tell a compelling story in space with fantasy elements and it's still sci-fi. The Expanse is sci-fi. John Carter of Mars is sci-fi. 2001 is sci-fi. Star Wars is sci-fi. Star Trek is sci-fi. Foundation is sci-fi. Flash Gordon is sci-fi. For All Mankind is sci-fi.
I thought of a partial solution to the "air lock boarding" problem: the pirate ship needs an exit port that's a giant suction cup. Attach to the hull of the other ship, suck the air out, breach the hull with tools/explosives, and board through the hole you just made. Now you're entering through a wall instead of a door, and the other ship will lose pressure if it detaches.
I think both the "horizons" issue and "space piracy" issue would be complicated by operations around planets and moons, although this depends on how well-settled a solar system is. Pirates can potentially hide in the atmosphere of a planet to intercept ships slowing down on their landing approaches with missiles, bots, or tractor beams, or perhaps just hijack their navigational signals to direct them to a fake landing site. A remote enough outpost might not have the resources to combat said pirates, and an important enough hostage might preclude a massive military response.
Would love to get people's opinions on the ship from"The Last Starfighter" 360 degree fire capability independent of ship motion always seemed like a plausible idea.
The Last Starfighter was the only Film that really got that right, even tho a small fighter doesn't really make sense, doesn't it(but well the Starfighter in that film wasn't that small tbh)
Yeah the idea of the fighter itself is probably the least plausible thing about the gunstar. A manned craft is always going to be limited by having to account for their pilots, who can't handle g forces as well as an unmanned craft, which can theoretically be designed for maximum thrust to weight without having to worry about killing its operators. It's why they don't have fighters in the Expanse, as I understand it. You just can't outrun munitions in space.
@@magicalgirl1296 there's one type of munition you can outrun in space; unguided ones technically, the rocinante could outrun its own railgun rounds (kinetic weapons are like the worst weapon to use in space, unless it's a missile, where's only kinda shit)
We're looking at a Legend of the Galactic Heroes battlefield, where huge fleets maneuver and position themselves and exchange fire back and forth at each other. Fighters only come out when the fleets get into close range, it ends up looking like something more resembling a battle out the Napoleonic era with ships fighting in ranks. But hey when you can see each other approaching unless they were using galactic bodies to hide their approach, it just quickly becomes a battle of attrition and who has more guns to fire.
I havent seen this in the show but ill assume ships bunch up to protect themselves from long range missiles or among other things (like communication aswell) If not a bunch of smaller, more agile fleets should come up on top. We see this when the numerically superior alliance fleet got defeated in detail on the first battles of the show
FTL travel, as is accomplished in Starfield would make dogfighting a necessary objective. If you can instantly appear wherever you wanted to, you could jump into point blank range take out your target and be gone before any ship longer than a few light minutes away could even respond.
A point: we can detect Voyager because it's actively trying to contact us and we know exactly where it is. But what if there were several small ships painted in Vanta black to blend in with the back drop of space, and they were either going radio silent or using communication signals that were directional and pointed away from their target? OR, they approached with something like the sun directly behind them so that any of their radio sources could get drowned out by all the radiation and light from the star?
"ships painted in Vanta black to blend in with the back drop of space" Space is not cold like black death or black drop, space is 3 Kelvin degrees hot and space craft will be hotter like 100 °K but painting Vanta black would be very hot from sun radiation.
I'd say for that one, the main reason is it is more fun. A bit like if you were to show how real hacking is done in a computer hacker movie. I understand your point, and your movie pitch is great, but that would be one movie. I'm not sure this scene could be reused numerous times before it got old, while space dogfights can be entertaining numerous times if well used. I would say you also mischaracterized bit how the smaller spacecraft are used generally. As a general rule they come out of the bigger ship once the bigger ship as closed the distance with it's intended target, so they are not meant to start chasing from millions of kilometers away. As for dodging, I agree that you cannot dodge lasers once fired, I think what they try to represent in movies is that by moving around the opponent doesn't get a lock on you, so when they shoot you're not where the laser will hit, from the start. Now, I do understand that the aiming computer would not get fooled by those maneuvers, but again, it is more entertaining that way. A bit like if I actually started to imagine how a world where people are pretty much as evolved as us but also magic users really exist (ex: DnD), it would most likely be closer be less fun than the fantasy world we play with. Overall, I enjoy when they use science correctly in entertainment media, but I wouldn't do it at the expense of the entertainment part. Space battle would most likely get used a lot less if we tried to be physic accurate, and in that case I would say that fun trumps realism. I'm not saying you couldn't make a few good movies with accurate space physic, but these would be other kind of movies. They'd be entertaining in their own way, but I wouldn't remove the "fantasy sci-fi" genre just because we know it wouldn't actually work. It is still fun.
Also, props to Star Trek for being ahead of the curve on this one. I don't think I recall many, if any, dog fights in Star Trek. It's usually a battle between multiple large capital ships.
Partly it's a case of Star Trek being "dated" - TOS set a precedent, and of course TOS predated Star Wars by a decade (ironically, TOS is actually often better in one specific respect than its sequels because of budget and SFX concerns - it tended to avoid showing multiple ships at the same time so battles often took place at longer distances).
From what I've seen, it's usually capital ship vs capital ship or shuttle vs shuttle (or the equivalent). In any situation where it's capital ship vs shuttle, the shuttle is either almost instantly overwhelmed and destroyed/captured or the capital ship has something more important to focus on and the shuttle(s) are being used in an unorthodox manner.
@@andreabindolini7452 The Jem'Hadar ship are small but closer to corvette ships than fighters. They're just under 100m long and have a crew complement of 43.
"I can see you, Kirk. Can you see me?" Star Trek very much falls into the traps that Kyle is talking about - treating space as the ocean, and space ships as submarines being the big one. While TOS doesn't have many "dogfights," there are quite a few in later series. Fights against the Borg in TNG, the whole Jem'Hadar war in DS9, multiple incidents in Voyager...even before these examples, the major battles are heavily inspired by WW2 submarine combat. Watch any of the battles between the Enterprise and a Klingon ship with a cloaking device, and the parallels with sub combat become obvious - the ambush, waiting for the right time to fire, trying to find the other ship before they find you, even the wolfpack tactics used in a few episodes.
I remember once being told that space combat would be far closer to submarine warfare than anything that has ever appeared in most media. I think this pretty much agrees with that statement
@@xthebumpx yes there is a lot of stealth, the guy in the video based stealth only on light. but what if you turned of the outside light, and the cabin had windows like sunglasses that prevent light from escaping. then you would never detect the object without an active censor.
I feel like there’s one more advantage of small ships at this scale which is that small ships are harder to hit, because the margin of error for aiming becomes incredibly high at these ranges and even a small difference in places that can be hit could make an important difference in terms of effective range and accuracy. A ship with 10x less surface area requires 10x more accuracy to hit, and because the limits of accuracy are already super high this could matter
Another advantage is quantity. If you're in a single large ship, not only is it easier to hit, but if they take out one ship, it's all over. If there are dozens or hundreds of small ships coming at you, you need to aim much better, and take all of them out. If even one ship gets through, you're in danger. Of course, that just goes back to, why would these ships need to be manned? Isn't it exactly the same if all of these "ships" are really missiles or torpedoes?
Or you could just use AI controlled missiles that home in on their target when they get close and accellerate at a G rate that would be impossible for a living person to survive.
@@QBCPerditionWell, the other side to quantity is location. If I can build 10 frigates for the cost of one battleship now I can cover 10 star systems instead of one.
As a pirate you simple puncture the outside of the merchant ship and wait a day or two - then cut in and take everything from the dead people. No need to tow the ship - and its definitely easier in space than port. They can watch you do it, but by the time they have seen the images and sent a response you are gone
"Some die or everyone dies" isn't the trolley problem. While it could be easily confused with the trolley problem it's not. The point of the trolley problem is to pick who survives between two different groups. If there is only one outcome where _anyone_ survives then the trolley problem does not apply.
the Forever War books had great space battles. all the crew got in a pods that kept them safe from not getting killed by inertia while the computer handled the high G maneuvers away from and fired missiles at another ship a million kilometer ways.
To be fair, they usually have energy shields in said sci-fi series which is why crashing into the death star with an asteroid wasn't really optional. They also tend to use non-laser energy weapons (i.e, plasma launchers, as fictional as they are) and you get some funny throwbacks like flak cannons here and there. Elite Dangerous does it all pretty well, I'd say. Stealth doesn't formally exist in the series, so they spec heavily into defenses, offenses, and maneuverability. You get some autonomous things such as weapon targeting and targeting detection systems, but a lot of things require human decision-making. They still use small spacecraft but they pair with much larger fleet carriers to wear down said shields. The fights are less WW2 dogfights and more heavy Broadside slugoffs of the 17th/18th century.
As someone who’s dipped my toes into as many space sims as I could get my grimy little PC gamer hands on, I so appreciate you explaining the science of warfare in the context of space as so many games get it wrong, sometimes acceptably so for artistic measure, but usually it’s just a huge letdown at the missed opportunity for science-y immersion.
Small, detachable launch platforms have a couple of advantages that didn't come up in the video: - they let you launch from multiple angles, bypassing some forms of defense - they let you split your forces so long as their life-support lasts There's also the occasional scenario where you want to engage in hostilities near a planet, when suddenly there is a horizon again, and fighters are back on the agenda.
An actual space battle may take place tens of thousands kilometers away from each other. 1. so multiple angles would probably just be less than 1° angle from each other 2. splitting your may help if you're escaping but for attacking then it's back to 1 3. some landing crafts and eacort for those would be nice for landing in a planet but if just want to attack a hostile planet then some orbital strikes should do
Yep. In Command and Conquer 3, the Alien force had a carrier for this reason, it was even called "Planetary Assault Carrier" which launched small gun-drones. Another feature of that ship is that it could create an "ion storm" which sort of resembles a very large thunder-storm cloud, think of it like a giant smoke-screen which could disrupt detectors. This could make sense then for having small fighter crafts hide within the storm making them hard to target.
Fighters also come back on when operating in and around any sort of debris field, be that the wreckage of a destroyed ship or space station, or an asteroid belt.
@@GremlinSciences Nope. Fighters still suck at that. Space is really, really big, and with no drag, debris rapidly diffuses to the point where the size of the spacecraft attempting to navigate through it becomes pretty much a non-issue. That also goes for asteroid belts, too, where individual asteroids are thousands of kilometers apart, at the least, not at all like the _Empire Strikes Back._ Not to mention that smaller spacecraft would have less space/mass for sensors and point-defense weapons than larger ones. Even if it only had today's fission reactors and diode lasers, something the size of the Death Star could easily travel through asteroid belts and debris fields, evading the big stuff and deflecting the little stuff.
One Scifi “fighter” trope that kind of made sense was Wraith “darts” from Stargate Atlantis. The fleet consisted of battleships that released hundreds of fighters that traveled to the planet to find & scoop up people - who they would later eat (sort of) - rather than just blowing stuff up from orbit.
In the novel StarWorld by Harry Harrison, the rebel fleet took out the Federal Fleet (bad guys) using just cannon balls that they launched as a swarm leading them as they swung around Earth. Harrison used physics in his To the Stars Trilogy back in 1980. It was a good read.
The did something similar in the expanse books (presumably the series too) Small rocks much larger target. The same with The Revelation space books, just start lobbing rocks at a pursing craft at high speed
There are a number of issues with this, I'll just number them so it's easier. 1. Modern militaries can already detect and fire at each other over the horizon yet planes and Aircraft carriers still exist. 2. A large object in space is always going to be easier to spot and hit than a smaller object in space. 3. While there is no friction in space, mass still exists and it's easier, takes less fuel and is faster to accelerate and decelerate an object with less mass(IE something that is smaller like a fighter) than an object with more mass. 4. The Voyager 1 isn't trying to be stealthy and we also know where to look and what to look for, in fact it would be kind of pointless if it was stealthy. WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO DETECT IT!!!! If we sent an F-35 to the edge of the solar system we would never find it. 5. Engagement ranges are hard to quantify, As mentioned in point 1, we already can spot and fire at aircraft from thousands of miles away, this does not mean that if we fired at an aircraft a thousand miles away we would hit it as it would also know that we had fired at it from a 1000 miles away and has 1000 miles of travel time to react within. 6. Bigger engines don't mean faster space ships. It's a matter of thrust to weight ratio and in space it's also a matter of time under acceleration. 7. Space Fighters(or ships in general) don't have to be manned so don't neceserally have to worry about G force. You also would not be forced to accelerate and decelerate quickly just because you are in a small ship(that would more depend on tactical considerations that would make you decide to decelerate in the first place, which in space would probably not happen often as keeping your velocity would always be the better option). 8.While the speed of light is fast so is the speed in which an object travels in space and also as Space is vast the distance at which lasers would be fired is going to be quite far as well. Though the speed of light is also not that fast when you are talking about the distances in involved in space. You would need to get your ship close enough that you could account for the velocity the ship you are aiming is travelling at. You also don't need to change your course or velocity much to avoid a laser or any other weapon, remember, we are talking about objects in space whizzing around at insane speeds, all you would need to do is adjust course by just a fraction and you will be nowhere near the point your opponent aimed at. 9.I agree that pilots are not necessary but disagree that a space fighter would not be better than a missile, see point 1, we already can spot and fire at targets over the horizon yet we still use fighter planes. 10. Larger ships have more mass, are easier to detect and easier to hit. There is also cost and combat losses to think about, if you bring one ship and it gets hit then you have lost 100% of your force, if you bring two smaller and cheaper ships and one gets hit then you have lost 50%, and on that goes. It's hard to say how large a laser would be or would need to be given that this is Sci-fi so we are talking about levels of technologies and abilities that don't exist yet. 11. Again, we can only detect Voyager 1 because we made it to be detected, also detecting is not reacting or preventing. To stop a pirate you also need a friendly ship within range that can intervene and remember, space is vast so that's not going to be likely. Added to this, you must remember that whatever signal you pick up on still can only be relayed back at the speed of light at the most, which is not that fast in space. It could quite literally be years before the signal telling you that there was a space pirate in the first place even reached you. 12. Detecting a change of course does not mean you could react to it and there would be many other reasons to change course as well. Narrow kill boxes are a feature of real life cargo ships as well, in fact they are a feature of a lot of environments where fights take place such as trenches or indoors. But of course fights still take place there. You also don't actually have to fight for a ship you can just threaten to blow it to smithereens and accept their surrender. Most pirates don't actually fight for the vessels they take. 13. Even if they did watch you do it, it's very likely they are watching you do it a year ago or more. They wouldn't be able to do much about it. 14. Robbing people on land has it's own risks, like you know, the police. The whole reason piracy exists is because a pirate can isolate and rob a victim without anybody being able to help them, which when we are talking about the vast expanses of space, would not be difficult to do there either. So in summary, pretty much everything you said was wrong and silly.
I would like to mention Children of a Dead Earth, it's a realistic space combat game. Features only plausible future technologies too. 6:18, that's acceleration. Delta-V is the spaceship equivalent of mileage.
what's hilarious is that children of a dead earth's laser technology is basically what was available in the 1970s its realism suffers from its development process dev went so hard into simulating everything that he forgot many vital aspects and also did choices that happen to not be realistic radiation shielding isn't modelled, half of real concepts/developments on weapons and drives aren't featured, there is not a single display of sensors and electronics warfare it's a fairly memorable hard sci-fi game, though people hope to see one day one that is actually more realistic and doesn't try so hard to have every single setting tweak-able on its different systems
@@hobog generally the game tries to model too many things but ends up forgetting a lot of important stuff lack of many realistic/possible propulsion systems (some can pretty much not be modded either, like orion pulse drives), essentially no electronics warfare, unrealistic depiction of most weaponry (because it tries too hard to model them in far too much detail, but has assumptions that aren't entirely correct to begin with), etc it's a deranged game perfectly suited to scare people away from hard sci-fi, without even being that realistic, though it has a place as one of the few iconic hard sci-fi media works there is rad shielding is really messing with how ships look though, they'd be better off shaped like a bicone, inverted cone or cigar, rather than a strict cylinder or cone like is usually shown, to minimise the radiation shield size and keep a small shadow shield
More than half the fun of space combat would be to design the ships and the missiles and program them. People spend so much time in the starfield ship builder but nobody likes to point that out. Awesome stuff Kyle!
You can do that in space engineers, and as a lifelong programmer, that's what I did. It was more than half the fun of playing that game, but actual combat was terrifying because playing against other humans who were doing the same, conflict meant the destruction of property and Engineering that took days or sometimes weeks to put together, and hoping that your scripts don't fail. It was a lot like actual combat, because no plans survives contact with the enemy.
No real programming, but maybe pick up Children Of a Dead Earth. You can design realistic ships for realistic combat all the way down to the composition of the nukes you load in your custom-made missles.
@@mgmchenrythis is where you add vector thrust, delete or rebalance gyroscopes to the IRL counterparts and add aerodynamics, stuff gets so complicated people decide it's not worth attacking each other anymore
I read a science fiction book that had a very good argument against large space vessels in war. Essentially it had to do with the momentous energy that could be used in weapons. Either fast kinetic mass thrust into an area or nuclear bombs meaning you could not make a vessel strong enough to survive even a grazing hit. His take was every ship would be modular able to break apart into dozens, hundreds or thousands of vessels for battle and then reform. That way ships could escape by offering too many targets.
@@KingOpenReview The idea was the engine units would be in one grouping with a backup and thus for long voyages at 1% to 10% C where the ship would be very hard to attack it was better to be combined but in system or when confronted for war they would break apart.
There was an older scifi miniature ttrpg that actually had "realistic" space combat although I can't remember its name. It took into account many of those things you mention. Unfortunately while I enjoyed it it never really took off and was gone in a year. People like the fictional action sometimes more than realism.
Sounds like you're talking about Attack Vector: Tactical. I have a mint copy I bought years ago and never played since I moved away from my gamer friends, but some day...
My favorite depictions of realistic space combat ever are in the Kris Longknife book series. Fleets of ships made of programmable smart matter blasting each other with laser batteries from tens of thousands of kilometers can actually be quite exciting. The series isn't strictly hard scifi, but it stays pretty close most of the time.
*Thanks for watching space dorks!*
You're welcome Physics Fabio
Thanks for making this for us, space Thor 😂
Of course Kyle…..hey wait a second!
Well, there is no stealth, and there is ALL stealth in space. Yes, you can't hide. But be far enough away, or coast like an asteroid, and as long as noone looks at you, you are invisible. And as long as you don't make too much noise.
I've recommended some of your videos to my lab mates, thanks for keeping me entertained through an undergrad degree and now grad-school Kyle!
also keep in mind that you're not going to detect a laser weapon that is targeted at you until it has already hit you, as is the nature of light speed.
Yeah, I was surprised something that obvious have been missed. Can't avoid something if you can't see it coming your way until it actually hits you.
Although one could spot a laser aimed at you before it has fired.
@@ybokors8524 You might be able to tell that the laser is there, you might even be able to tell parts of the assembly heating up before firing the blast, but all of that also comes with the light delay *and* you can't know if that laser is actually aimed at *you*
@@insu_na how so can't one tell it's actually aimed at you? And yes, your reaction time is the time it takes to fire the laser.
but lasers will have much smaller range than railguns and missiles though, they are also A LOT less powerful than a steel and tungsten projectile flying toward you at mach 20. lasers will maybe slowly scorch a fixed point of your hull and slowly cut it at maybe 50km away, a railgun projectile will basically go right through your entire ship as if you were made of smoke from a completely different orbit, or the moon depending on how good the aiming is. the advantage of lasers is, as people already said, they can't be dodged and are pinpoint precise, so you can use them to basically disable everything that is exposed, like your enemy weapons.
My favorite space combat story was a book called "The Forever War". One of the "battles" was simply, "We've detected an enemy missile. I will impact us in about a week."
THIS
Lmao, yeah the battles and descriptions were so detailed in the technicals it really fired my imagination and got me thinking about space all over again
And yet Heinlein managed to construct a scenario where two space-going civilisations had to fight with hand-to-hand weaponry just to make things interesting!
'The Lost Fleet' by Jack Campbell displays space combat very good. And the books are also very fun to read.
I really enjoyed how he played with time dilation as well
I also liked how the later recruits saw the main character as a veteran even though he'd only been in like 2 battles.
Realistic space combat runs into the same problems that face realistic sword fights: the fights would be short and largely determined by who lands the first hit. There can still be suspense, but it's a lot trickier to keep an audience's attention when taking any hit means the fight ends and the other party will die. You can make it work for books quite well, examinkng the thoughts going through each fighter's head with each action, but in more visual media like movies or shows, that flexibility of time to draw out a short fight through mind games and such is a lot harder to pull off
That's also the case in samurai films and those are still quite popular, if with a different audience.
Real life fighter jet dogfights already look like that. When they interviewed WW2 aces, they talked about how quickly the fights were over and about how it was all about having the advantage in speed and altitude, as opposed to long drawn own aerobatics competitions like we see on the screen.
@@slicershanks1919 that's the problem with combat in terms of excitement. If it's a 1 on 1 fight it's just a matter of who lands the first finishing blow, be that knocking someone out cold in a fisticuff or at least break their leg or something so that they can't continue the fight, or basically the same thing but with weapons. I can see a swordfight taking a bit longer if both are really good at parrying the other's blows but someone will make a mistake at some point. That's kinda what your goal in a fight with melee weapons is, exploit an enemy's mistake and hope you don't make one. That mistake could also be that the enemy is too weak to parry your blows because you're Swolo McBeefcake. In a gunfight? It's all about hitting the vulnerable parts of your enemy first and sometimes that can be from just sniping your enemy who was unaware of your presence. Vehicular fights? Mostly comes down to whose combat vehicle is better. A jeep with a machine gun is faster and more mobile than a tank but that jeep can't do shit against the tank's armor so it's more about when the tank will land a shot. Wildcard there could be infantry with anti vehicle weaponry but those have to rely on the vehicle they intend to destroy with it being unaware of them and the weapon they are using being able to one shot the vehicle or at least deal serious damage to it. But as soon as the vehicle operator knows where you are you are toast.
The same will happen for spacefights, attacking another vessel will mostly come down to who has the better ship. As Kyle said, there is no stealth in space. You see an enemy and as soon as they are in range of your weapons you can unload on them and they will unload on you until only one ship remains. Or none. Big ships will have an advantage in those fights because by sheer size alone the attackers will need to land more hits to actually destroy it. In that sense the Borg ships from Star Trek might actually be the most efficient warships in SciFi simply because they are big cubes with multiple redundancies built it, weapon arrays spread across its surface so even if you blow a huge chunk out of it it can still fight back. It also runs off a central computer that can coordinate the crew instantly. Though in theory you wouldn't even need a big crew to operate such a ship, you'd need a command crew that tells the computer what to do and then the computer will do the fighting for you. At best. Maybe a backup engineering crew to keep the main systems running but that too wouldn't require alot of people. Unless your ship is capable of self repairing those things, which we can assume will be a thing.
what about force fields?
That's pretty much like any battle in real life goes - 95% of the time is maneuvering and 5% of the time - actual fire engagement, very fast ans very fierce. If fire contact lasts longer bodies and wounded start to pile up very quickly.
My dad loved Star Wars, and he watched it by himself before he even told me about it. His enthusiasm could not have been more intense! But he always bemoaned the concept that people were even needed to fight in space, especially in such an advanced civilization. He said that computers would handle everything infinitely better than humans could.
Some years later I read a short story (I think it was in Omni Magazine) where wars between planets and systems were merely calculated by computers to determine which side was the winner, thus avoiding so much unnecessary bloodshed.
Until the computer takes the other super computer into account which enters a loop and then cavemen with stick and rock win
@@Cthulhu357 lol you caveman! To defeat computer, you do not need another computer. You need space copyright! "Quick! Gunner it says "Insert original disk", were is our original disk??!!" 🤣
@@Cthulhu357 not true, if you have paid attention to the starcraft ai development you would know how wrong that assumption is.
and even the best humans in the world cannot beet them unless they put restrictions on the ai.
@@robgilmour3147 rock goes bonk
And when one empire doesn't agree to this AI concept of war? What about when you get something like a devouring swarm like the Tyranids? Or you get some race like the Klingons who want to fight for the glory of the fight?
With regards to frail meat bodies and maneuvering, I liked how in Halo 3 one of the terminals talked about a space battle where an A.I. in control of a large combat vessel basically disregarded the humans on board in order to more effectively maneuver the ship and that the A.I. was fleetingly aware of how the former occupants were now basically splatters of gooey matter sloshing around inside the ship.
So the best maneuvering ship that hold humans safely would have some similar design parameters to an egg drop device...nice.
The Apollo return capsule was basically a large multi-stage, 3-egg drop device.
Tbf human squishyness is overestimated.
The bobiverse series was such a great example of AI ship to ship combat. The only limits to G force being on the hardware itself, and all engagements essentially being won or lost thousands of miles before anything kinetic ever happens. Many times only getting one good pass at an enemy with a miss meaning several days to decelerate and turn back
@@Endelin you put it in simple language very well 😊
You need to read the Lost Fleet series by Jack Campbell. He went out of his way to try to get the physics for space combat as realistic as possible. Including talking about things and the fact that combat takes place over hundreds of thousands of miles.
The best part of that whole series for me was that not only does the preparation before battle last for months, the battles are over in seconds and conducted by AI gunners. The crew is just along for the ride other than making repairs, planning the battle, or planetary invasions.
If you like this stuff I would recommend the Forever War by Joe Haldeman. It has insanely long range relativistic space combat, taking place over light years distance, and looks at the consequences of that.
Thank you for this post and for beating me to it. Love that series so much for all of the realistic sci-fi space battles. I'm actually re-reading it now. The time delay aspects of communicating even at the speed of light really make for interesting preparation for space battles. You just arrived in a system? You get the full picture of what is happening there (even if it is old information) while the other guy has to wait hours to see that you even got there. Love that he dunks on fighters and stationary weapons platforms the whole time. He even calls the kinetic projectiles that ships launch at stationary targets "rocks." LOVE this series and really recommend it.
I really enjoyed the interaction of FTL and light delay, basically every time a ship exits FTL it gets a massive information advantage as it can immediately see everything in the system while those in the system will take hours to see the ship. Really nice series.
so you all ok with stupid retro idea that thousands years ahead people still fighting like monkeys , now in space? lol. its like zero knowledge about human psychology progress. there is no wars in the future let alone space wars
The Expanse handled this really well. Everything from acceleration changes, to quick maneuvers had to be planed and prepared for in advance.
One of the best Sci-fi shows of all time.
@@bryanteger Agreed. I was so upset when it abruptly ended. There were so many unclosed storylines they had introduced😭
@@tizodd6try the books if you haven’t already. Best in audiobook version. Books 7 - 9 picks up after the tv show ended.
@tizodd6 please read or listen to the last 3 audiobooks it goes in a way different crazier direction and I loved it all.
I listened through all the audio books after watching the show it's worth it
@@tizodd6You’re doing yourself a great disservice if you haven’t read the books. Although they’re much much better than the show I will give the show credit because it’s some of the best sci-fi I’ve ever seen.
Expanse have pretty great space combat vision
Also there is Honor Harrington series, written by navy officer. There are great takes on different types of weaponry, tactics, strategy and formations in fleet to fleet, fleet to space station+fleet, fleet to planet with orbital defences. Also, there are great takes on swarms of small vessels in combat, stealth in space and at war in general, pricy high-tech vs low-cost low-tech strategies and tactics.
Space combat in The Expanse is probably some of the most realistic in SciFi, as they take into account acceleration and also the lack of gravity, but they also have plausible weapons, with missiles and EM rail guns used offensively, while lasers and projectiles are used defensively (against missiles).
However, even The Expanse opts for the "rule of cool" by having stealthy spacecraft, such as the Amun-Ra stealth frigates.
Another (unrelated) glaring error, is that the alien wormhole is a 2D ring when it should be a 3D sphere...
Honor Harrington is OK, but suffers from the same problem as Star Trek, as most of the flying and firing is still performed manually by humans, when computers can already perform these tasks better.
The spaceships in Peter F. Hamilton's "Night's Dawn Trilogy", such as the sentient Voidhawks, are more plausible, piloted by an AI which is symbiotically, neurally bonded with their human pilot.
@@GonzoTehGreat thumbs up for anything from Hamilton. The Galactic Commonwealth is still one of my favorites to this day.
Check out Space Carrier by Ian Douglas, The Lost Fleet by Jack Campbell, Hyperion by Dan Simmons or even Starship Troopers by Heinlein if you want good space/space combat or just better space travel in general. I especially love Hyperion's method of fast travel in that she ship is fine.....the humans are turned to liquid due to the accelerations, just reassembled after the ship gets to where it's going. And in Space Carrier they generate micro black holes in front of the ship that pop in and out. But since the entire ship is pulled towards it and not propelling itself then it can go FTL as it's the frame that's moving.
@@gotindrachenhart 💯 agreed. For me, Hamilton is something like the Tolkien of Sci-Fi. Ridiculously detailed world building filled with fantastically imaginative ideas, but not the best at writing characters. 😁
@@gotindrachenhart Thanks for the recommendations. 👍 I've read the first book in the Star Carrier series. It was OK, but I found his storytelling somewhat lacking. Hopefully, it gets more interesting as the series progresses. Your other suggestions are all on my reading list, especially the Hyperion Cantos and Starship Troopers.
I'm currently re-reading the Foundation series after ~30 years and while Asimov's imaginative world building is still impressive, his characters are poorly written and his writing style leaves much to be desired.
Mass Effect 1 has a codex entry describing the complications of fighting in space, there's so much thought and lore put into it. The cutscenes don't really reflect how interesting that entry is, but it's nice that it's there.
I just love that little scene in ME3 maybe, when an officer tells the gunners, when they fire a thermonuclear shell and did not hit target it will just fly straight into space until will hit something/one eventually.
@@teveszaki i remember that one too!
@@teveszaki Wasn't there a scene in ME1 where a NCO was dressing down two junior enlisted, ending his lecture with something like Newton is the baddest MF in space.
@@urbypilot2136 Both of you are talking about the same scene and it was ME2 at the citadel. "Isaac Newton is the deadliest son of a bitch in space!"
@@anastasiyaivanova4665Oh right! It was ME2.
This is why i have a serious appreciation of the television show The Expanse. They have their own stretches on physics but they paid a great deal more attention to details than pretty much any other show or movie.
The books are even better, you should read them. But physics do kinda get thrown out the window in the last 3
@@ianh1504 that´s to be expected, with all the fictional alien stuff...
And it´s somehow ALWAYS the fictional alien stuff in most shows, that doesn´t make any sense and gets eventually overblown to a point of pure fantasy.
@@Morpheus-pt3wq I'm fine with that though. Otherwise whatever mystery might be left in the universe would be pretty static and too familiar to really evoke that sense of wonder.
@@Morpheus-pt3wq its unfortunate that real life got in the way of making the 6th season so they had to heavily edit the story and now we'll probably never get to see the end of the series
I was about to write this. Heck yeah 💯
I think that the Expanse's combat is fairly realistic
Came to say this. So well made .
Exactly! I like that the expanse show that they have to completely strap in and even be injected with a stimulant that is a mix of blood thinne, blood vessel protection, and adrenaline when they have to make extreme maneuvers or speed.
So do I
@@kylehill, sooo, can we get a video?😊 About the Expanse, that is, lol
@@ctjones522 not enough ppl watch the expanse a video on it would get basically no views, which is stupid because it's amazing
The way FTL handles space piracy is honestly pretty cool. They answer the question of how pirates would board your ship with "teleportation," and "they ram a robot through the hull, causing a breach that sucks all the air out, and then the robot kills everyone aboard," and, "lol they don't, they blast your ship with enough radiation to kill your crew," and so on.
These are pretty solid methods. But,
1. Teleportation comes with it's own problems, the first of which "what's the point of space travel when you can simply teleport to your destination?"
2. That robot approach is actually pretty awesome. In a similar manner, I know a book where they sneak one guy aboard a ship who then proceeds to construct hundreds of combat robots in-situ using hacked shipboard facilities. And in order to defend, the ships crew must build their own robot army and a war of attrition ensues, like skirmish RTS match aboard a space ship. It's wild.
3. Radiation sounds neat, but might get blocked by a ships hull which would already be radiation-proof against cosmic rays. And for anything more effective againt the hull you'll probably end up with lasers anyways.
@@debott4538 To contribute to your first point, we already see this on our current scale. Some people prefer driving or trekking cross country instead of taking a flight because they get more enjoyment out of it. I'm one of them. Instead of taking a 1 hour flight to Atlanta and being done with it as quick as possible, I'd rather take a 7 hour drive in my own car. If we lived in an era space travel and teleportation I don't think my opinion would sway too much. Throw on some dub techno and I'm at peace with the engine of my craft droning away in the vast nothingness of it all.
The closest thing we have to space travel currently is cargo ship travel where you can be out at sea for days at a time. Every now and then you'll pass someone else, but for the most part it's just you and your crew out there.
@@FurryWrecker911 @FurryWrecker911 Thanks for the response. But I think your point lacks somewhat since we were talking about an environment where piracy is a thing.
I assume you are not often at risk of armed robbery on your 7 hour drives, are you? ;)
And if you were, wouldn't you also prefer your trip via air plane?
@@debott4538 Oh I was speaking more in a general sense of transportation as a whole, less so about FTL. My mistake. I lost sight of the big picture here.
@@debott4538i mean the teleportation might not work over suuper long distances
This video actually makes me appreciate the way Dune's space travel is done even more, especially for a story of that era. Space travel in Dune is very expensive, especially when traveling to different star systems, and there is no combat in space because all space travel is controlled by one entity. Battle is still done within the atmosphere of planets and as such it follows the same laws of physics as modern day war but with more advanced technology.
this is a really good point
Gotta love how despite warhammer40k being a direct copycat of Dune, they made everything so bad shit insane its unrecognizable. Like space ships ramming and broadside combat kinda crazy
The edgy Dune clone@@AvatarAang100
space travel in those books is also a monopoly
Isn't the premise of guild navigators that they can see into the future, allowing them to plot a course that wouldn't collide into anything?
The Expanse probably has the most realistic space battles so far. Especially in the books when they dont have to cram everything to within visual range for the viewers.
Absolutely. Surprised that there are not more Expanse references in the comments.
@@mapsgoonthewall5396 Heh, I just left a comment before scouring the comments for more Expanse references!
Children Of A Dead Earth is a great example too.
@@mito._one of us
Beltalowda
The issue with locating something small, like the Voyager probes, over a large distance is that you need to know exactly where to look.
Space is big. Really big.
Yeah, that was my thought. Sure, you could probably, theoretically see just about anything you want within the solar system, but unless you know where to look to begin with, it seems like you'd have to get really lucky to see any ship, large or small, if it isn't broadcasting any kind of signal.
Also that the voyager is designed to be noticeable, we designed it to be seen at long ranges. The fact we don't have stealth spacecraft that don't emit EM radiation isn't indicative that it's not possible, but that it hasn't been a design criteria so far. As soon as space warfare becomes a thing, that'll absolutely be something that we design ships for, exactly like we design stealth fighters today.
To be fair, it is kinda difficult to design something to not emit EM radiation. If the craft if constructed in space sure, but to do so on a body then launch it into space is going to be difficult given the extra mass.
The problem is heat. If you dont radiate it out you shit would cook very fast. Thrust cant be hidden at all. Then you also have the issue that your shit obstructs what is behind you which can easily be detected.
Yea, his contention that stealth is no longer a varible, either through size, or distance or extremely low albedo at most all frequencies is silly. Of COURSE that would still be a massive factor.
He's kind of a science nerd with no experince but lots of standard science jammed into his head.
Gundam sorted this out in the combat in the 70s. Ambushed in asteroids, and use special sensor jamming particle generators to be harder to detect. The small ships, and even the robots, were mainly used to fight the enemy big ships at close range while said big ships were busy fighting the other big ships.
"asteroids" Nope. Asteroid fields like in star wars don't exist in space, apart for a very short time, like when a moon is destroyed by its host planet when it comes across the Roche limit.
Another solution to this issue with realistic space combat is that, with few exceptions, any Gundam series in the metaseries that uses energy weapons utilizes *only* particle beam weapons, circumventing the issue with the instantaneous/near-instantaneous shoot-to-hit time that lasers would have.
@@CurrypkatRamonlab
The asteroid thickets present in many of those Gundam series are usually explained away as being the result of human intervention, e.g. literally being pulled out of the Asteroid Belt by starship tugs and brought closer to various places for easier access for mining and/or building purposes, or, in some cases, being used to drop on Earth/or tossed at space colonies because... The insanity of man and their ideological grudges.
Even then, asteroid fields like commonly depicted in most Sci-Fi are practically non-existent, with the closest being areas with a high concentration of battlefield debris generally termed as "shoal zones" in the various series.
If you had watched any one of the Gundam series, you would've found the explanation pretty much handed to you on a silver platter, instead you wanted to sound smart.
@@The-Plaguefellow I sounded smart (for what I care) explaining how it is in real life, not in anime or scifi shows. You, sounded acrimonious and quite like pure form of social network drone.
@@CurrypkatRamonlabno, you sounded like you were trying to talk down to them.
The person didn't write about hiding in an asteroid belt. They wrote about hiding behind or in asteroids. Which would be highly feasible in nearly any space based setting.
Any colony building would be dependent on asteroids for building material. Likely many colonies would be made directly from any asteroid of significant size and composition.
Gundam has several large asteroids that have been brought into orbit arounds Earth and many clusters of debris from large scale battles.
MassEffect 1 had a wonderful Codex Article covering Space Combat, elaborating on how engagements would take place light seconds and light minutes away.
It also touches on heat management in warships and how you cannot effectively get rid of heat caused by weapons systems. It was very detailed but sadly in-game you never saw it in action.
Because it would also be really boring to watch.
Yes, the heat aspect gets overlooked most of the time. They allways have some form of "generator" or "reactor" that produces all the required power and some form of "shield" that dissipates incoming beams and projectiles, but where does all this energy go? In warhammer 40k the shields transfer the impacting energy into another dimension aka the warp aka literal hell.
@@oO0Xenos0Oo And they never have any kind of super heat sink for all that heat to go.
Yeah heat management would be a huge limiting factor in space combat. In vacuum you can only get rid of excess heat via radiation, which is pretty slow and depends on the surface area. This would definitely impact the design of ships and choice of weapons. I think the most useful weapon would be rockets/torpedoes since you can just "push them" out of the ship without significant excess heat and they can start accelerating on their own (burning their own propellant), heating up only themselves.
On the other hand, humans have always been very good at developing ways of killing each other, so I would trust them in this case too.
@@SMJSmoK I agree those choices would limit heat surplus aboard the ship but at those ranges of light seconds or minutes, torpedoes or missles cannot hold enough fuel to track or lead a target, plus they are too slow in velocity only reachimg several 10 of thousands mph as apossed to railguns reaching percentages of C.
Probably the best depiction of how "stealth in space" would work, is in the "Helforts War series by Graham Sharp Paul". Most of the first book is them planning and executing a raid using things like plant shadows and regualar orbiting comets to mask the approach and inseartion into a system.
Cheap sensors scattered all over the system . . . no shadows.
Or maybe the battleships hide inside black holes after all even the slowest Starships in Star Trek at just ridiculous speed which is 5 times the speed of light would be able to hide inside of a black hole without being pulled towards the singularity of the black hole so the battle plans are: step 1 hide inside black hole until the enemy gets close, step 2 attack enemy spacecraft until they either give up or they fall into the black hole after their ships faster than light speed drives that become damaged to the point where they can't operate properly anymore, step 3 capture enemy spacecraft and force the crew to tell you where the enemy base is, and then step 4 raid enemy base and win the interstellar War! 🫡👍👌🙏😊😀
@@DavidMuri-rm4ym check out Battlestar Galactica! The synthetic side literally has its base in the very small machine made calm zone of a natural singularity. Forcing all the attackers to either stay away or jump directly beside the armed base. Which they do.
I think stealth in space can only be achieved through hacking and intelligence. Imagine something otherwise obvious, right out there in the open, but you can't see it because your systems are lying to you. Maybe everyone else in the solar system have caught on but you've been cut off by some MitM spoofing tactic and is blissfuly unaware. And of course the speed of causality could be a factor. e.g., If something went down on Pluto, Earth wouldn't know for several hours. Another thing sci-fi could play with is to lower the tech and cornucopia a bit, like 1969 space combat. Think: Das Boot, but in space. Tense and gritty, with all the physics.
Even if you do all that, your ship's I.R. signature would literally stick out like a flare. That's why cloaking devices or shutting everything down and "running silent" won't hide your ship either.
I feel like space piracy would have to be more just fake distress calls and just waiting around hoping someone will take the bait, you’d probably need a secondary ship to occasional make an approach and preform a “rescue” so it doesn’t look too suspicious after a while. But I agree that most of the piracy would probably happen planet side. I do think space combat where everyone always knows where everyone else is is actually kinda interesting, a lot more plan and strategize on approach than high maneuverability jet pilots.
Ideally smart pirates would already have some of their crew aboard the target vessel, both to determine the worth of the potential booty and to neutralize any on board defenses. It would be more space hijacking rather than space piracy.
That, or staying powered down in a debris or asteroid field to ambush any scavengers or miners that come too cole to you.
Pirates would never be able to ambush trading ships in a space scenario like the expanse because those would be at a ridiculously high relative speed if they ever came close to a prepared ambush. Things that treat you hidings spot as thier destination would be the only available targets.
the battle for information in a space battlefield would still be present, just a lot different than traditional warfare.
instead of detection vs stealth by concealment (the physical obstruction of information vs the effort to uncover them),
the meta of information warfare would be based on prediction & precise timing vs unpredictability & unexpected maneuvers, due the real-time lag of information (light speed) in extreme distances between space combatants.
One of the scenarios written for the Traveller RPG (yes, the 1970s original, released the same year as _Star Wars_ ) presented a nice starship defence against space pirates. When the pirates fire a warning shot across your bows, you radio your surrender, kill the drive and open the airlock. The pirate ship docks and the boarding party transfer to your ship. When they open the inner airlock door they find themselves staring into the gaping mouth of your laser cannon...
Having vapourised the boarding party and shot the guts out of the pirate vessel, you send your salvage crew out via the real airlock to claim your prize.
You should read "The Expanse" series and/or watch the show on Amazon
I never called Star Wars a "Science Fiction" movie series, I called it "Space Fantasy" since it had a lot of magic and was just high fantasy just set in space.
True
There is a reason why it was first called a space opera before it was labeled Sci-fi
space opera.
Star Wars has always been a soap opera, just in space. Even george lucas knows this!
Yes you can detect small spacecraft that are far away, with one major caveat-- you have to know where to look. It's hard to keep track of every tiny pin-prick-sized spot in all directions (the whole sphere of directions) all at the same time. A small spacecraft "fighter" closing in from an unexpected direction could take an enemy by surprise.
Honestly though, this kind of tech is difficult to implement but not impracticable. F-35B pilots have sensors around their hull feeding data to their AR headsets that can enable full 360 degree vision about the aircraft, even though the body of the plane, in multiple spectrums.
This really would end up being just another advantage of larger ships, probably. The smaller a sensor is, the harder it generally is to reach either extreme range or accuracy.
For an advanced spaceship, having more room to accommodate larger sensors (and more of them) will provide better awareness, and reaching a certain level of capability will be easier. With that being said though, smaller ships would still be able to incorporate this ability, just at smaller scales. I think when spacecraft are developed to the point where a sensor suite like this is feasible (in terms of mass and power requirements) it would become standard safety tech.
The only reason we don’t do this now is because power and mass are the biggest limiting constraints on spacecraft. We have come up with more clever ways to stay safe and be aware of our surroundings from outside the craft, so we don’t have to make every spacecraft carry all that extra stuff.
It would be great if it could all be on-board, but the challenge in doing so is something we have to overcome anyways before ‘space navies’ ever become a thing, which is overcoming the limits our our current energy and propulsion technologies.
Not really. All spacecraft will give off infrared energy, which isn't difficult to detect. You'll know where anything and everything is around you, reaction time and anticipating what the enemy will do is important.
You also have to assume that, despite having the scientific knowhow to travel distances over time to make this scenario even plausible, no one has ever developed technology for a ship trying to actively remain stealthy to fool these sensors. We would likely see the same sort of stealth arms race we see today, where stealth tech gets better causing sensors to get better causing stealth tech to get better, rinse and repeat.
I was about to say this. Thanks for pointing that out. Even if something is detectable from a very far distance the farther you go the amount of data you need to elaborate grows exponentially high to a point where the mere computation would take several years at least with current technology. Realistically speaking a ship would only try to detect objects that are within a certain range, which arguably can still be a pretty enormous radius, but certainly not spanning an entire solar system.
EXACTLY. all the arguments fall flat when you think about them more than 3 seconds.
In Gundam they solved the problem introducing "Minovsky physics", basically the fusion reactors used scatter a fictional subatomic particle, the Minovsky particle, that messes up with any kind of communication and detection, wich means that combat can only happen within visual range. And the only weapons similar to drones have to be either controlled through cables, or with the extrasensorial abilities of the pilot.
Gundam is a great example of space combat done smart.
I feel like Gundam also compliments this by then adding in New Types to the mix, with their superhuman empathy acting like a radar built upon that 6th sense of mankind. It’s neat how when technology fell short, mankind’s role as a social species ascended to accommodate.
"Legend of the Galactic Heroes" also did space combat pretty well in my opinion. There was no dog fights. Space combat came entirely down to large fleets fighting it out in long range shootouts with tactical positioning and kind of "flanking". And then there was the occasional the use of "super weapons"
I love Gundam
Right! I wonder why no one (exaggerating) talks about Gundam when talking about space combat smh
Something I really enjoyed about Battlestar Galactica reboot is that while they did go with the whole space fighter thing, they at least didn't limit them to aerial maneuvers dictated by aerodynamics. They moved about with RCS thrusters, spun around to shoot at pursuing craft etc, it was pretty cool.
And demonstrated that the best weapon can be disabling the enemy without even firing a shot, as the Cylons did in the initial attack.
That was a great series!
I also very enjoyed the detailed attention to realism in space maneuvers and combat in The Expense.
There's a game like this that does something similar called Infinity Battlescape
And Babylon 5, and Space: Above and Beyond did that too.
There's a game called "Children of a Dead Earth",which attempts to make orbital combat as realistic as possible. The most notable feature are orbital mechanics just like in KSP
It still makes some concessions to make you actually go close to the enemy. Railgunning each other from a neighbouring moon isnt modeled, and you dont get to use big boy nukes.
Big boy nukes are possible if you know how to make them. I've got 25mt yield warheads the size of a person in that, and 2kt micronukes the size of a football. It doesn't model billion km ranges because they aren't possible with tech we have now. The precision required to make a railgun slug reach as far as it does right now requires 0.0001 for the margin of error, and thats to reach 6km with a target radius of about 30ft. To put a round in a target at 20,000km would require a precision barrel with an error rate in the 0.00000001 range. Aka, not possible. Yes technically you can reach infinite distance, but actually hitting the target is another matter.
Using large gravitational wells to 'slingshot' objects towards a target would be incredibly effective you could launch a missile toward a star, the engine power would be covered by the 'noise' the star it producing, once it is on the far side of the star it could cut engine and leave escape velocity towards the target at incredible rates of speed. If you painted the missile an extra dark black, it would be almost impossible to see coming before it hit you. The margin of error on such a thing would be incredibly difficult but you could theoretically use air burst control to redirect on route without being detected.
@@kain52002and it would take years for it to reach the target which by that point the war could be over, and you will be hitting innocent people
@@ravener96 nukes dont work in space...
Remember that detecting and tracking weak radio sources from millions to billions of kilometers away requires some pretty big receiver dishes that dwarf any spacecraft that we can even hope to build in the not too distant future. Also, even with a bunch of those huge dishes here on Earth, it helps to know where to look since too many are needed to scan the entire sky continuously.
But your system will never be attacked by 20 W probes. Rocket plumes will be seen in visible light and infrared by much smaller telescopes all the way up to Pluto. (Additionally, even though it's not important in this context, weak radio signals could be detected in space by huge radiotelescopes because they can be made _extremely_ light in space due to not having to support themselves against gravity.)
@@fsmoura they are not going to use radio, that's absurd. And rocket's won't be on the menu either. No one had any idea the combustion engine was a thing until it was invented and changed the planet. Same thing will happen with whatever tech is coming.
Also, all that telemetry just told you where the object was and what it was doing several minutes or even hours ago. Not where it is now, nor what it's been doing.
@@FrostSpike Good point, I'vent seen this mentioned before. Still, if its that far it is of no threat to you and this light lag it doesn't matter much.
Well, your idea of an exciting sci fi-based video game may be fun for about half an hour. But in general, you seem to want to analyze games like Starfield, and sci fi in general based on our current scientific and technological limitations and a serious lack of imagination.
First, artificial gravity answers a lot of your questions. Directed, controllable gravity generation can not only be used for propulsion and artificial ship-board gravity, but also to cancel out inertial effects of sudden acceleration/deceleration.
Second, no, space combat would not favor smaller number of larger capital ships unless you had perfect shields that would cover every angle of attack equally as well as distribute damage perfectly across the shields.
Third, you’re seriously underplaying how difficult detection can be to make the argument that stealth would be impossible in space. You have to be looking in the right direction, in the right electro-magnetic or alternate band, have the right size of apparatus to be able to cover the wavelengths, etc. And then, if you’re in a system, especially near planets or asteroid fields/belts, well, good luck distinguishing something that’s actively masquerading as something else, especially if they’re not using particulate or EM-based propulsion at all.
Edit: This was meant to reply to the video not the top comment here, which I wholly agree with as well.
i think all of this is why the warp/jump/wormhole drive or whatever is such a magical piece of sci-fi gear. it not only makes travel over long distance feasible in a meaningful time period, but it would also make it impossible to observe someone move towards you, as the target would be moving at the speed of light (or faster). you literally wouldn't be able to attack or prepare defenses until they drop out of warp on you, making space a highly agressive battlefield.
i really like how the older elite games handled warp. it was only usable between systems, but still tooks years to do. additionally, jumping between systems left a visible wake from where you entered hyperspace, and a ship with faster warp could analyze your warp wake, outspeed you to your destination, and literally just wait for you to arrive and kill you. that was a take i found really interesting on space combat.
I actually had a interesting idea in my own sci fi world for a drive system.
Sub-space drive, which is useable for in system travel and also useable between stars depending on your ship and module of the drive.
the drive would simply push the ship through a rift into subspace and would then drop your ship back into real space at the destination. you wouldn't be able to predict ships arriving on a scanner, they just arrive "out of nowhere"
im thinking about making a countering system for bigger station that ships cant drop out in a certain area around it or even around a planet, the system would just force your ship to drop out if you get in the range of the device. out of range of weapons for probably both sides but in range for all scanners to pick up.
the drive would use alot of fuel and power and is fairly slow on longer distances.
Interesting. I hope all the best for you in your writing endeavor.
@@gringles thank you! its still gonna take a while, im writing on a basic thing for now as a trial cause im writing it in english (its not my main language) and then maybe write the finished (first) product.
@@fritzflitzsci-fi often does something similar for enforcing "No jump zones" with the simple concept of Gravity as the restriction factor. Gravity wells interfere with jump systems, and the bigger the gravity, the farther out your jump ends unless you want to critically risk potentially devastating results, ranging from exciting well off course in general to burning out your jump system, burning out your entire ship's systems, tearing your ship apart upon reentry into normal space, or even reappearing inside other solid matter like a ship, base, or planet, with catastrophic results...
A small earth sized planet loose in interstellar space would force you out at extreme combat range, while a Sol sized system has enough distortion to guarantee a 10+ hour trip in normal space to reach earth if yo intend to stop and visit instead of flying by at combat speed...
The Honor Harrington books handle this Really well
@@Shocktrue1 exactly what i thought, gravity and mass, also artificially mass locked by stations and well most orbital stations are near planets anyway.
The "Lost Fleet " series by Jack Campbell handles intership combat pretty realistically.
They do use special pleading devices, such as inertial dampening, and two different versions of faster than light travel (hyperspace and teleportation of entire fleets of ships)
But the in system battles take light speed lags of sensor information and intership communications as well as the physics of turning craft around to re-engage opponents while traveling at one tenth the speed of light.
And the ships carry "rocks" ballistically shaped chunks of dense metals that they launch at planetary targets from the edge of star systems.
The author maintains the suspense in the combat scenarios, but I'm not sure they would translate well to films or games.
It's actually pretty unrealistic. The problem Campbell fails to consider is that it would be trivial to maneuver defensively eg dodge at those sort of distances even if you are firing slugs at high fraction of c. Or intercept them with your own slugs even. If you have drives as efficient as the ones in the series it would be utterly trivial for military vessels to constantly shift their orbit. Which would massively reduce the distance at which you can reliably hit.
@XMysticHerox Have you read the books, because i think you may be misunderstanding how combat in them plays out. What you've said is literally pointed out in them. Dropping rocks can only be done for planetary bombardment (because planets can't dodge). Ship to ship combat only occurs at short range. With hours spent accelerating towards one another a 0.1c, and since their relative velocity is 0.2c engagements last a few nano seconds where they mostly just try to fire buckshot into the path of the other ship. And if one party doesn't want to engage in combat its basically impossible to do so, as they can just keep their distance. The self guided long range munitions (Spectre missles in canon) rarely every work because your opponent just shoots them down with mid range energy weapons (hell lances) or short range rail guns (buckshot)
This is a great series of books and the author really has thought out space combat in a way not readily considered in other sci fi settings.
If you like sci fi with a strategic twist then this is a good shout.
Also, probably some of the easiest books to read 😂
This!!! I shoulda scrolled a little farther before making my post about the Lost Fleet. I’m really enjoying this book series so far, even tho it kinda ruined space combat for me when I see classic dog fighting lol.
I'm fairly certain these reasons are why in Star Wars they jump in as close to the enemy as possible from a complete different star system, as their sensors can indeed detect even an x-wing across the star system. Giving the enemy fleet as little time to react as possible. And there are atmospheric battles too, which originally the larger ships could not enter atmosphere, they were just too large. And they have stealth ships as well for scouting and such.. it does make sense as to why they are not just shooting at each other from millions of kilometers away.
Not sure how he missed this one. Also I don’t recall Star Wars tech being able to detect anything more than a few hundred thousand kilometers away. Take Ahsoka for example: she was able to hide in a bone field. And the Eye of Sion wasn’t able to track or detect her ship
The thing about this video is that he took hard physic approach to sci-fi. With FTL, jumping, warping and shit, things would be different. When traveling in (some type of) FTL, you will be completely undetectable, bringing the cloud back to space combat. But it's not like Star Wars tactic is perfectly valid, like if they can send manned aircrafts in so close, why couldn't they just send a thousand nuclear missile, at least as a preliminary strike.
@@naravishthongnok5899 While I broadly agree with a lot of the points he brings up I think it's important to note that our current tech is designed for stealth on earth. To detect something in space you still have to give off emissions that would make you detectable and there are probably ways to mask your signature in a way that would still throw off sensors to some extent. Either that or you can deploy dummy signals around the system that might be difficult to rule out by sensor systems many AU away.
Voyager isn't a great example anyway. Voyager was not designed to be undetectable - it gives off emissions - and we know exactly where it is to look for it. The sensors described here have perfect signal detection capabilities across a full spherical area and can immediately spot even the tiniest discrepancy from the typical background noise. I don't think that's actually as easy or simple as it's made out to be in this video.
Finally, considering the backdrop here is Starfield, he ignores a rather relevant detail: the grav drive. People generally don't just fly around at sublight speeds across vast distances. You jump straight to the destination you want to by folding space. This is somewhat similar to other types of FTL travel that most space shows employ. So a lot of that 'closing distance' is eliminated by the ability to drop in within a reasonable distance from your target. Then it comes down to defensive capabilities and maneuverability.
Of course the 'dodging lasers' bit is still a thing. Even an AI is going to be unable to really 'dodge' incoming laser fire. (Nevermind that you can't actually see incoming laser fire before it has already reached you anyway.) So it would be more about baffling sensors to throw off targeting at which point evasive maneuvers could still be effective.
But a lot of those critiques do rely on sci-fi tech which may or may not be possible. Certainly, a lot of these critiques absolutely apply to a universe with sub-light travel and tech that's within the lines of what we know is possible.
In other words, it's the same reason why modern militaries still have ground forces when we could theoretically switch to drones and missiles only: because a more varied military capable of fighting a unilateral war is more likely to win.
@@t3hsilarn Also most SW blasters use plasma not light to fire. And plasma moves significantly slower than a laser.
In summary: Kyle's concept for improving the scifi genre is a space trolley problem.
Reminded me of FTL
Discombobulate
Just push a fat guy.
Aka, dull. Dwarf Fortress in space.
Alternately, it’s all in ship stuff like Alien. Which really puts the being in space way on the back burner to the point of not mattering.
As a scientist he forgot that games and pop culture are more about fun and spetacle than it is about realism...
Not his fault here, but he did forgot to mentioned two important aspect of any space sim game... shields and gravity generators.
I have in my Steam libreary a game called Starship Evo, the goal of this ship is just build ships from scratch (is much more in depth than the ship crafting system of Starfield.
You can build a ship with many blocks you want and whatever size you want, but theres a set of parts that need to be in a ship, altough not essential parts, the shields (this actually are essential especially for combat ships) and the gravity generators are parts of the ship that does make a difference.
The shiels are especilly efficient against solid objects, and the gravity generators besides allow us to walk straight on our ships also do the trick of fix the G forces while flying.
And yeah, i know this sort of stuff isn't realistic but...
I loved Babylon 5's explanation of space stealth for Minbari craft: the sensor systems they used against Earthforce ships simply overpowered Earth's sensors. So we knew they were out there, but simply couldn't target them effectively. But then we found the solution with John "Nukem" sherridan where you just booby-trap the area with nukes that the Minbari simply weren't looking for.
that is basically how ECM works. people think that ECMs make you invisible, but its the opposite, it actually blinds the enemy sensor with an absurdly powerful signal. the problem however is that half of the galaxy will know where you are (well... eventually)
To this day my buddy gushes about how realistic the human fighters and ships in B5 were, especially for the time. I'm inclined to agree, the whole show holds up very well even now.
I love Babylon 5. I'm currently rewatching it with a couple of friends who haven't watched it before
The Mimbari would have lasted three seconds against Earth if the writers had ever heard of anti-radiation missiles. If you’re pumping out that much electromagnetic radiation you’re a perfect target for a passive seeker. Jamming is like shining a flashlight in someone’s eyes in a dark room. Yeah, they’re blinded, but they have a real good idea where to toss the grenade if they can’t shoot at you. Jamming is like tracer bullets: “they work both ways.”
@joeatwood6905 You're assuming Minbari jamming works like ours do. They're the most technologically advanced Younger Race. It could work through completely different principles that humanity isn't aware of.
I'd also like to add an additional combat problem: Heat. I was listening to a NASA engineer talking about this. Despite space being quite cold it, because there is no atmosphere it is actually quite difficult to properly dissipate heat. So if you are using laser weapons against your opponent the heat you are imparting on their ship is way more of a problem then slicing a piece of it off. Eventually the staff on board one ship or the other would give up or pass out from heat exhaustion.
Any warship would have massive radiators. If you use ablative armour I highly doubt it would be possible to boil the people inside.
@@XMysticHerox Massive radiators sounds like a great target. Also bear in mind those radiators are depending on conversion to infrared light to release the heat.
Any warship in a realistic setting would already have to rely on radiators unless you introduce some fancy technobabble tech that means you don't (which is fine just not super hard sci fi).@@foxstele
@@XMysticHerox I don't get your point. Dissipating heat in space is hard. Of course they would have radiators. Problem is, depending on infrared transmission for heat dissipation is very inefficient. It is nothing like using a radiator in an atmosphere. As you scale your ship up I'm pretty sure the problem goes up at a square-cube rate.
The point is that ships would already have significant capacity for dispersing heat just to run their engine and fire their weapons. Worst case scenario they turn those of.
Between that and ablative armour I don't really see lasers being able to disable the a ship through heat alone.
As for a larger ship. Well no not really. Yes you have more volume per surface but as you mainly depend on radiators not the hull itself the square cube law does not matter much. @@foxstele
I've read that since space is a vacuum, and vacuums are perfect insulators, a lot of space combat would probably just be focusing heat rays at each other and seeing who cooks first, since it's very difficult to shed the heat you're receiving.
If you can make sufficiently strong lasers or fling objects at relativistic speeds, defense would be very hard for the target. Fights would be long range indeed.
Now I'm imagining hyperadvanced aliens having swarmships that are just mass hives of "Nanites", femtomachines, ect, and the whole ship can squirm writhe and reshape itself physically out of the path of any incoming weapon, or ablate sheets away from the core mass to mitigate laser spotlights / heatwaves. The swarm intelligently shuffling interior spaces around as it does so, or on the spot forming sealed compartments for passengers for temporary events or as an escapecraft.
More interesting at least than "Fields" doing everything.
Doesn't radiation not require a medium to travel? Hence the radiators on the ISS
@@yemmohater2796true, radiation doesn't need a medium to shed energy, so a radiator could still work. however, it is FAR less efficient than if it was in a medium.
The way the vast majority of heat is shed in a medium is because of the physical interaction between molecules. When two molecules in a medium bounce off each other, their energy equalizes.
This process is pretty much instant, so think about just how many molecules are bouncing off each other at any given moment. That's why radiators and heat sinks work as well as they do, the increased surface area allows for greater interaction with a medium to either cool it down or warm it up.
wouldn't generating the energy to produce a focused heat ray also cause you to heat up?
With FTL drives, it adds another dimension to space combat. Being able to travel faster than light can mask your presence, as you will only be seen by the distance light takes to get there, and if you do a FTL jump, you're effectively invisible for the period of time light takes to get there.
Outrunning light in one direction doesn't mean light won't still bounce off you from every other direction. It might even be accelerated in the direction you're going.
@@BlueSatoshi It doesn't work this way. And it also depends on how FTL travel is done. If it's with a wormhole, then there's nothing to bounce off of except for a burst of radiation to indicate it. If it's warp, same thing.
Light can't go faster than light.
@@BlueSatoshi Straight in front of you, you'll arrive before anything can detect you. Straight behind you, anything not also traveling faster than light can't reach you (so for example you can't be hit by laser weaponry). In other directions it depends on how much faster than light you're traveling.
Book I'm reading right now still has counters to this. You can detect the starting point of where a ship spun up their FTL drive and calculate their trajectory and likely point where they'll come out of FTL. There is only so much heat a ship of a certain mass can tolerate during FTL travel before it starts to melt itself or the crew. In the book this turns into an interesting cat and mouse game. The fleeing ship using FTL can use objects like a star, planet, moon, etc. to hide their FTL spinning up from a certain angle for short time. (But can't be too close to a gravity well to use FTL.) The chasing ship in turn only has to aim it's specialised FTL sensors along the right angel to detect where the fleeing ship starts and stops using FTL.
The fleeing ship can in turn vary the times they come out of FTL and make slight adjustments to the angle they use FTL at to obscure their final destination and make it harder to follow follow-up FTL travel.
The book is called: "To Sleep in a Sea of Stars" for anyone interested.
@@Handinmapocket "You can detect the starting point of where a ship spun up their FTL" this is already a pretty bad take imo. Without having omniscience-level technology you shouldn't be able to detect who entered ftl at the same time as they did it.
Everytime I watch an educational show about space combat, weapon systems are always discussed. But never defensive systems. Such systems would change how space warfare would actually be conducted. I would love to see a part two to this episode that would incorporate a good discussion of realistic defensive systems and how the model of space combat would change.
Scalar beams make shields (tesla) and can disperse a light beam wave, much less melt incoming scagg...
Realistically, every space battle is fatal for both parties. Missiles can easily generate far more kinetic energy than any hull could withstand, especially a hull that needs to be lightweight. No ship can carry enough lead to shoot down a thousand 1kg missiles. In space, offense easily swamps any possible defence. The guy who shoots first *might* survive, only if the other guy never shoots.
@@xizivejoneswouldn't the best way to deflect and disable a kinetic missile be another kinetic missile? In which case the survivor is the one with more missiles.
Check out the expanse. They got it right. Other than hacking attacks and redirecting incoming attacks with flack, there is essentially no such thing as defense in space. Your best bet is to get in a space suit, put the interior into vacuum, and just hope the shrapnel passes through a non critical part of the hull, and not you or your fuel tank. We would have to completely misunderstand physics for it to be any use at all. If you want something that that’s defensive options, but only one unrealistic magic technology (Mass drives), I’d recommend Mass Effect’s codex. They put so much creative, grounded work into thinking about this issue.
@@Tinyvalkyrie410 one of the issues I have with the expanse is that the treat metal as an infinite resource. Every bullet shot into the void or ship lost is metal gone forever. Asteroid mining can only produce so much and metal is becomes more valuable when in space travel is possible.
The expanse had space combat pretty well nailed. A fleet downing another fleet halfway across the solar system. Rogue factions hurtling asteroids at earth. Small raiding ships with rail guns and nuke torpedos. What a show it was.
Well looking at it, it isn't if we invented all the tech used in the expanse tomorrow yes but with lasers technology being possible any of these weapons are gonna be useless except maybe pdcs
This video reminds me of a scene in a Honor Harrington book, where the main character is talking to cadets at the Space Academy.
It's not about hiding as a way to make yourself *invisible*, but it's about using deception, bluffs, and electronic warfare to make your ships look like something they're not.
Yes. Misdirection and blinding are both totally valid tactics. Hiding a raider crew on a ship that is supposedly a refugee vessel or a cargo ship is quite legitimate. On the other hand, simply glaring a multi-frequency laser into the face of whomever is trying to look at you will certainly not prevent them from knowing exactly where you are, but it may make it quite difficult for them to ascertain important details about you that they would really like to know before it's too late...
I kept thinking of the Honor Harrington series the whole time he was talking.
@@VastinIf you blinded another ship's view of your ship with lasers they'd probably just assume bad faith, alert everyone in the system, and send homing missiles in your direction.
@@EvdogMusic Oh, no question. They just might not be quite as sure WHAT they were nuking. :D
@@Vastin "Hey, what was that enemy?"
"Dunno, don't care, it's dead now."
The most novel space combat I've seen depicted is in the Jack Campbell (John G Hemry) The Lost Fleet series. Space battles would occur at relativistic speeds (fractions of c), and the ammunition was basically just kinetic slugs launched at high speed. Engagements only last fractions of a second, and relied on being able to predict enemy fleet positions millions of km apart.
Read the Honorverse books, way better.
@@tomwithey711 Why not read both series? That's what I did, and both are absolutely fantastic!
Makes no sense tbh. The very obvious counter would be to maneuver randomly. There is literally no way to predict that no matter what sort of insane supercomputer you have.
The range of unguided munitions in space will always be limited by the enemies ability to manuever defensively. Even at relativistic speeds there is no way to hit reliably at millions of km unless you are bringing an absurd amount of firepower.
Not to mention that being able to accelerate a slug to fractions of c is some pretty out there tech.
@@XMysticHerox well yeah they didn't hit much without closing with the enemy. Flying past at massive speeds, encounters last "fractions of a second" as stated.
Even that is pretty out there. Doing flybies at relativistic speed is very out there. You'd have to either travel at interstellar speeds and then somehow maneuver into an intercept once you arrive in a system where you only get one shot at it. And for all that effort you have literally zero advantage because the enemy hits just as hard.
Or you have weapons that can fire projectiles at relativistic speeds from a relative standstill. Which is completely absurd. Thats complete science fantasy.
Which is not to say it is a bad book series. I just wouldn't hold it up as an example of realistic space combat. Like a lot of military sci fi it is science fantasy essentially on the level of Star Trek but dressed up in a gritty theme that makes it feel realistic. Which is fine again. Just not a portrayal of probable, realistic space warfare under our current understanding of physics. @@jasonwinzenried1115
This is why I loved the space combat in The Expanse. It was treated very realistically, and I felt that added a tension that you don't get from stylized combat.
And just remember, there actually is a good reason why they didn't use lasers - heat. Another thing the movies tend to get wrong. The problem isn't the cold of space, it's being able to dissipate heat. And energy weapons generate a LOT of heat. This is why they were still using projectile weapons.
That's addressed in some works. In Saberhagen's Berserker universe, the really powerful beam weapons are on planets where they can use whole seas for cooling.
The heat problem is also at least mentioned in passing in "Mass Effect", and "Elite:Dangerous", where, depending on loadout, heat management can be more important than power management. @@robertmiller9735
@@robertmiller9735that is sick.
The Expanse's ships relationship with the heat is... weird, TBH. They don't use lasers because they generate too much heat, but at the same time their engines should generate enough heat when thrusting to vaporize the entire ship with generated heat ten times over (I think somebody calculated the energy Epsten drive generates being somewhere in the petawatt ranges?).
Yay for Mass Effect! Radiators (a bit lousy, but still good explanation) and heat sinks that have to be discharged by approaching a planet.
8:11 In the Japanese Anime Space Battleship Yamato, the enemy also redirects small objects towards Earth, namely from the Kuiper Belt, in a way to bomb earth from a distance earth cannot defend.
Kuiper is 4 light hours away. Surely, the Earth would have some counter measures to intercept the bombardment.
@@debott4538 Today? Not really. Even a nuclear weapon can only destroy objects of certain sizes. The best option would be to try to use disposable satellites to change the trajectory of objects. If an asteroid or Kuiper Object the same size as the Chicxulub object that wiped out the dinosaurs were to be on a collision course with Earth, that would be our best option since even the Tsar Bomba wouldn't even dent that thing. Just like nuking a mountain: You can take a sizeable chunk, but the mountain is still gonna be there, albeit with a decent sized crater in its side.
@@theminerwithin9316 No, not today for sure. I was thinking about a sci-fi universe where Earth possesses space defenses. IRL, an asteroid redirect takes at least a year or more for planning building and execution.
@@debott4538 Like the orbial rail guns of Earth from The Expanse xD
And dodging lasers would require you to have detectors that operate at FTL. The laser hits you at the same time the light hits you to inform you to dodge, no matter how far you are from the source of the laser beam.
Pretty sure most modern sci-fi (haven't played Starfield though) deals with lasers by ways of messing with targeting systems or sci-fi shields and such.
Technically even Star Wars doesn't necessarily use lasers (and some other kind of projectiles, like plasma or something similar) but then again, SW is just a fantasy story in a soft space-age setting and counting all handwaving examples from it would take ages.
A small ship could still dodge by randomly accelerating in different directions, at far enough distances the big ship's information could be a quarter second out of date and it could take a quarter second for a laser to hit the smaller ship giving the smaller ship time to move out of the way of what the big ship might be shooting at it. Combine that with technology that makes the ship harder to spot (insulating the ships interior so the surface puts out less heat, painting it black less of the suns light reflects off of it, and using shapes that reflects radar or lidar away from its sources) and a group smaller harder to hit ships that is mostly engines and a guns could be more effective than a larger slower, easier to spot and hit ship.
You wouldn't use lasers to "cut" or make holes in the ships as lasers have ranges due to how lenses and optics work. And those aren't that large as Kyle suggests. Anyway, you would use lasers, microwaves and others to "cook" living things on spaceships. As the only way you loose heat is via radiating it away, which is slow. Just look at things like ISS, it has larger radiators to dissipate heat then their solar panels. And shooting things will require you to have internal heat collectors which will add mass to the ship and then insanely huge radiators, which you will not be using while in "combat". As damaged or destroyed radiators means getting slowly cooked by the sun and life support systems. I suspect first designed combat craft will play of a game of cat and mouse, "dropping" (you wouldn't want to launch them to absorb heat) missiles from your ship and "seeding" the enemies path with debris to heat the armor up and overwhelm their cooling capacities. Similar to how early subs needed to surface after few hours of "combat" for air, these ships will need to use radiators to dissipate heat. And you wouldn't bee able to use rapid fire weapons in space as they create enormous amounts of heat. Like miniguns getting red hot in a few seconds of shooting, it would take hours to cool it down if not days. Oh and don't forget things like metal welding in space and others things we can't think of.
While this would be true, lasers likely wouldn't be an exceptionally practical weapon to use for most ships. Keeping the coherence of a laser for things like communications over the vast distances of space is possible. Keeping enough coherence at those ranges to actually melt through the shielding on another ship would be an entirely different order of magnitude.
A laser powerful enough to *quickly* damage another ship would have to be so powerful that the ship it emanated from would basically melt. Otherwise, as soon as a laser was detected hitting your ship, you could simply start to rotate your ship around an arbitrary axis, making the laser never have enough contact with a particular spot to produce that much heat.
In addition, if you couldn't near-instantly melt through the opposing ship, said ship would likely begin evasive maneuvers, which means you'd only have that single initial shot have decent accuracy. You'd then have to rely on computers to attempt to predict where the ship would have moved to, until ranges closed significantly.
Actually dodging lasers would be done exactly the way planes 'dodge' bullets in real dogfights or soldiers 'dodge' bullets on a real battlefield while moving - you jig and change course randomly and frequently. Assume the laser can and will be coming at you at any moment, and make yourself hard to hit regardless.
If you get unlucky, you get unlucky and you die. If you get close enough to the enemy that your random course corrections can no longer realistically get you out from under their beam or projectile trajectory, you die.
The Honor Harrington book series by David Weber actually does space navies really well. Things like ship class and armor matter. Missles are dependant on tracking and electronic warfar capabilities. The ships evolved due to the tactics and technology available. Definitely worth a read
It is far and away one of my favorite military sci-fi IPs.
Even they have fighters C-LACs turn the war. His argument is bad and dumb. There are multiple reasons both in physics terms and strategically to have “space fighters”
- Dropped in to mention the Honorverse.
For all the legit MarySue criticisms, I loved the battle scenes. Hypervelocity smart missiles and klnetic dumb bombs but realistic inertial issues with getting your capital ships up to speed and maneuvering.
Trying to evade an incoming swarm that's many thousands of K's out... and still hours away. 😳
In naval terms .. like a battle using slow but very long range torpedos, but you're all sailing large oared Galleys! 😜
@@jimg5669She is Hornblower in space. It does not make it a bad thing. The Saganami Island tactical simulator board game is interesting but is a bit too much math for me.
I showed up just to say this very thing. Weber gets space combat about as good as possible within the bounds of his system of technology and real physics. Even to the point of evolving tech that renders previous tactical doctrine obsolete and forces navies to update both tactics and tech to keep up. It's a realistic combo of fighting with math, tech, resources, and logistics. He even makes engagement times of days and hours exciting to read...would love to see Honor Harrington on screen and done right, but we probably never will.
I've always maintained that more realism in games doesn't equal more fun. The entire point of a game is to be able to do things you could not irl. Even simulations only take it so far, because too much realism is not fun.
That sounds like such a naive and childish way to look at video games, and Growling Sidewinder would probably disagree as well, seeing how he loves playing that near military grade flight simulator. Games shouldnt just be escapism, rather people should learn how to stop making life so horrible.
@@storysearch9432Exactly. I would add fun is such a bad word for this stuff anyway. Fun is a dopamine hit. Not everyone needs every game be for a hit. Is Flight Simulator played by serious player not fun? Is flying real life airplane not fun? Maybe not - but it's enjoyable, relaxing, etc. So yeah, @ChadeGB, actually, we can't fly spaceships in real life so a totally realistic-as-possible space sim is totally what some people, including me, really want, because it's not irl and I can only imagine or dream such a life. I'll still play "fun" stuff like a Star Wars video game, and there's nothing wrong with that, but having ONE great realistic space sim is still an unobtained holy grail for many of us. We want the experience, not shallow "fun." More of ANY one thing probably doesn't equal more fun - it's all about the game being designed well as a whole to make the target audience like it and keep playing it.
@@ThisCanBePronounced And thats without mentioning the communicative aspects that making art in that media could have, with subtext, exploration of concepts and characters, subtle relation of ideas and stories to the lives of the audience, provoking thought and reflection, etc. Disco Elysium is one of my favorite games because the people who created it had things that they really wanted to express about life, and you feel those messages in that game, without it getting ham-fisted. I hope it never gets a sequel
Aren't we each supposed to determine what we as individuals want out of video games?
@@darealmaul No, you didnt make it, you just purchased it for 79.99 or whatever price it is. Thats when you say you as an individual are supposed to determine what you get out of the thing you bought. Its the person who makes the thing who is supposed to determine what they put into the video games. Whether thats meaningful or not is ultimately up to them. But im sure youd agree, its rather reductive to simply state that the purpose of video games is and should have always been about fun. Simply another way our capitalistic society twists something that should be meaningful into something that simply exists to be bought by lovers of the superficial and convenient, the apathetic and the just plain useless people who devote their lives to these sorts of distracting toys
Two comments:
1.) Unmanned, remote- or AI-guided fighter ships would be very effective in a space battle: The enemy has to deal with lots of small targets, and every small target is a separate drain on the enemy's resources.
2.) A human can't evade a laser weapon because the laser is undetectable until it hits you: It travels at the speed of, well, ya know,
1. Get a better computer
2. Light can spread, which makes it weaker and you do know how big is space is.
He mentioned that on because science on space battles.
@@Nobody-dl9zb1wt5light is the speed of information. When the computer detects the laser it would have been hit at the same time. Also on because science on space battles he explains that you can hit a target. Simply saying "get a better computer" is futile. Using ftl communication or computers leaves behind paradoxes similar to past travel making it inconsistent so no unless you are in an alternate universe with altered universal laws.
Part of the reason I love The Expanse series so much. Limitations of craft more often come down to the people over the ship. The craft might be able to pull 20g acceleration, but humans will more than likely die of a stroke at half of that. Ship to ship combat is mostly long range weapons with maneuverabilty to dodge incoming projectiles. It's a race to see either who can drop the hammer on the enemy faster, or who's got the endurance to outrun a pursuer.
Aircraft have already far exceeded human limitations. One of the reasons air forces want to use unmanned drones.
Exactly. And the nuclear missiles (no reason not to use them in space combat, since fallout is a non-issue) were much faster and more maneuverable than any manned craft could ever be. Successfully dodge one and it just turns around for another attempt. All you can do is hope that your point defense cannons can take out all the missiles before one hits you. Maneuvering just buys the PDCs more time.
@@MrClickity Cost, time of production, availability of raw, means to process materials. IRL, someone is going to have to see you as an immense threat and have no less costly means to neutralize you to send a nuke after you. I could see the potential of a kinetic missile that seeks to collide with a target then go back and land where the sender can retrieve it for reuse.
Funnily enough, your scenario reminded me a lot of Children of a Dead Earth which is very much a physics-based space combat simulation including usage of gravity wells and the like to get in position as well as fire your weapons. Worth checking out and it gets HARD quickly.
Also that game would never be as big as Starfield or even FTL
the game uses tech from the 60s which doesn't make sense, but it's a decent start for getting into hard sf.
just beat the game a few days ago. its such an underated gem that i basically never see mentioned except for when this specific topic is brought up
@@rommdan2716 Still a fun game
One thing CoaDE does not depict well are: sensors and Electromagnetic Warfare in general. Hell, your missiles don't even need sensors to find their targets, they just know at all times where it is, allowing you to cover their noses in meters of composite armour without consequences, which is very unrealistic to say the least.
One of the things I liked about Firefly is that even though they were in space, they were still using bullets in their guns and projectile weapons in space.
Battlestar Galactica seemed to focus more on a realistic approach to space combat. The viper had external ports that shot out propellant of some sort, and they were located all around the ship. With this approach It seem they would be able to micro adjust for maneuverability aspects. As far as munitions, I think solid projectiles were used they didn’t have lasers.
The most accurate space combat I saw in anything was in Forever War. I dunno what its respective influences were, but basically everything was just launching munitions at relativistic speeds through vast expanses of space and them trying to figure out how they were going to cope with that physically.
Super Dimensional Fortress Macross it not bad in space battles if you take out the Armoured suits but they are mostly used how you would expect and mostly realistic until they get later in
A PS1 game I liked was Colony Wars. Ships don't move like planes in atmosphere, you can spin in full 3D and keep the trajectory of your last maneuver.
Writer was a vietnam war vetern.
Aaah a classic,
For good descriptions I think you need sf books, not movies. Cholewa's Algorithms of War describe space combat excellently, more similar to submarine maneuvering. No visibility, silent running, torpedoes but at extremely long ranges, sprays as anti-laser defence.
Even modern day, we have destroyers lobbing missiles from hundreds of miles away. Modern air combat is all BVR, where it’s just lobbing BVR missiles at each other, and also lobbing stand-off weapons from BVR. Modern vehicular/vessel combat as dictated by modern weapons now rarely happens within visual range.
Also loved the Hyperion series, where engagement ranges are across entire planetary systems.
Air combat isn't all BVR. Most of the most recent air/air kills have been within 2 miles. Rarely are rules of engagement structured to allow for BVR.
@@kdrapertruckerplease provide examples. I would argue that modern combat between more or less equal powers would be both BVR and close one
Majority of modern conflicts have been a superior foe against an inferior foe without proper defences. So we have limited knowledge on the reality of defencive capabilites but if the defence industry has anyhting to say about it they are nearing a point of overtaking the capabilities of offensive weapons thanks to new tech.
US Patriot defences managed to take down Russian super sonic kinsals which as raised worries from China and other nations that the status quoe of MAD is now in question if the US would actually be capable of taking down ICBM's.
New anti missile defences are reaching a point where they can track and take down hundreds of incoming targets with high accuracy even if hostile weapons have countermeasures. A lot of modern computers have enough power to be able to be linked with a defence system and could track and take down fast moving targets.
@@kenji214245 Taking down 1-2, even 20 ICBM warheads was possible back in 60's. The problem was always that for every launcher you can buy enemy can buy 10 ICBMs.
Modern air combat isn't all bvr. Stealth will change this. 2 stealth fighters won't be able detect each other until they're close by.
I always saw space combat like the age of the dreadnoughts. Firing long shots at each other and eather taking someone out of action or reaching the end of their operational limits.
Probably. Missiles likely wouldn't work in an environment where you can theoretically see them coming from an infinite distance away and just laser 'em, so we'd be back to lobbing big chunks of metal at ludicrous speeds.
@@colbyboucher6391 You would use missiles to deploy "minefields" in space in enemy trajectories so they would need to dodge the crap they spilled. Doing couple of kilometers per second and meeting a couple of centimeter sphere in your path going at the same speed of at a fraction of a c. Would make anything we can make little more then wet paper.
@@colbyboucher6391 Kinda depends on how far we extend the tech level. Because once tech level gets higher you get more fanciful sensors, but you also get more fanciful ways of ECM confusing those sensors which makes missiles more survivable. We can take out incoming missiles today with water navy ships, yet missiles are still the preffered way of making an attack that doesn't use airpower. And you overcome the defences by shooting a LOT of missiles to overwhelm the point defence.
Similar would likely apply. As a bonus missiles also have the ability to correct their course for course changes that any fleet in combat will likely be doing excatly to limit the ability of the enemy to get them easily with unguided kinetics.
On the other hand kinetics would be absolutely lethal once ships close in to ranges where acceleration is insufficient to alter the vector enough for the ship to move out of the path.
On the gripping hand, missile or a solid shot in space are pretty much a same thing if they weight approximately the same. A ship is just as capable of giving them that initial speed. A missile is just a projectile that can do some basic course correction. And unless we are talking about basically space grapeshot both are as spottable.
Of course in near future setting, everything will be VERY fragile because low mass would be VERY important if we are burning the conventional chemical rockets. So pretty muhc anything works as a weapon. Including basically firing grapeshot AKA Kessler Syndrome Starter.
This is actually a little bit like how space combat is described by Alistair Reynolds in Revelation Space: the combat takes place over several lightminutes of range, largely using relativisticly accelerated masses to prevent evasion and fast accelerating high-g missiles to attempt the kill.
"Three Body Problem" has a very good description of a space battle that matches your characterization.
Cosmic Piracy is like trying to steal cargo from a moving train.
"Dune" shows quite realistic laser weapons.
Just a heads up if you're considering buying a Holzkern watch: Holzkern has a decent mechanism inside, but the watches themselves can be a little fragile at times. They use wood in a few sections and that can weaken it a little. They do have some really nice designs, and I've heard many good things about them but my experience with Holzkern was not the best in terms of longevity. If you love the styles they have then totally go for it! If you want something a little higher quality for the same price you could look into brands like Citizen, Orient or Seiko. Just some food for thought.
Anyways: great video as always Kyle!
There was an indie game called "children of a dead earth" several years back that focused on realistic physics and orbital mechanics. I never did try it myself though.
Its pretty good. But by God does it need a lot of brain power to play effectively.
This is the definitive space combat sim.
and Outer Wilds!
That one shows really well the difference in acceleration missiles can have compared to human crewed ships :)
it makes a lot of wrong assumptions and is far from realistic, but it is one of the "better" options
basically requires tons of technical knowledge to play though, and half of actual hard sci-fi stuff isn't even possible to do
lasers are also miserable, being stuck with 1970s technologies
kinetic weapons are somewhat viable, which is pretty magical in itself
missiles are apparently a pain to use according to every player I've met, and just instantly despawn upon running out of propellant
detection systems are also not modelled at all, and contrary to popular belief, stealth in space is possible in specific circumstances and assumptions
A game that did this really well is Children Of a Dead Earth. A lot of the combat is missles launched from out of plane and capital ships wizing past eachother while blasting away at eachother.
Yeah, in my opinion "Children Of A Dead Earth" does a really good job of portraying how DIFFERENT space combat would be with our current technology. It ends up being this interesting situation where it can take MONTHS to reach your target, and the speeds that the ships move at while in orbit often lead to combat only lasting for a couple of brief seconds.
And you had better hope that you made the right choice in sending ships to attack because it's not like you can just turn your ships around to have them return. If you're lucky you could find another object to hopefully give a gravity assist for a return, but otherwise you'll have to stay committed to your original plan of attack and then use the gravity assist from that object to return.
Yeah, but that game flopped
11:26 Warframe solves the airlock problem with ramsleds, boarding craft meant to breach enemy ships and make their own entrance. Basically the missile idea, plus they solve the killbox issue by detonating breaching charges that knock down defenders and clear debris.
I am a longtime mecha anime fanboy, and one of the things about real robot shows is that they normally have some kind of reason or explanation why their tech is relevant. I could see something like space fighters or pirates being relevant if they invented some kind of stealth tech but it can only hide small ships. But again that involves suspending disbelief and a touch of fantasy.
As far as space combat goes, I rather have the rule of cool approach hahahaha. Love mecha, and my favorites are the beam sword types, super inefficient and unrealistic, but so cool
In Battletech universe the reason for mechs is the invention of artificial muscles that contract as if they were your own. In MW Mercenaries 5 I actually see them in the limbs, if the armor is blown off. It gives the feeling that limbs can still work unless you tear through the entire muscle, unlike an unlucky hit in a servo of a conventional biped mecha design.
Also the convention bans the pragmatic approach of nuking planets from the orbit, so in a sense the setting itself admits that there are artificial limitations in warfare that make sense the use of mechs
Google **hydrogen steamer** for a hypothetical stealth ship in space.
I do think it's interesting how vulnerable ships in gundam end up being throughout the various series. They're still used because carrier doctrine and great weapons platforms, but the idea that essentially the most effective fighter is a dude in a big space suit is kinda believable. They also do stealth with dummy asteroids and the like which also makes sense.
Kinda how in battletech the concept of elementals changed how ground wars were fought.
Children of a dead earth has probably the most realistic space combat I can think of. You can build an Diamond, Aerogel and Kevlar composite armor with a configurable spacing between them.
One thing CoaDE does not depict well are: sensors and Electromagnetic Warfare in general. Hell, your missiles don't even need sensors to find their targets, they just know at all times where it is, allowing you to cover their noses in *meters* of composite armour without consequences, which is very unrealistic to say the least.
@@peasant8246 A sequel of that game is well deserved. I'd love to see the mechanics expanded and the visual style evolved. Unfortunate that it'll never happen though
@@The4j1123 I believe the developer has returned and said he's working on a new project set in CoaDE universe. See if you can find the post where he's talking about it.
I think Delta V handles space combat fairly well too, even though it's about mining and not combat
Having played the B5 game "We've Found Her", I can say that playing space fighter sims like you were flying in atmosphere is massively easier than real world physics. While the game was a fun diversion, I spent more time trying to change the direction of my motion than I did with my weapons on target.
It's so dang easy to drive too fast and overshoot when impatient
Cool, I remember playing that it was sure novel.. what I remember the kost though was the weirde hyperspace nav segments.
I'd played every major space sim since Elite in the 80s through Wing Commander, X-Wing/Tie Fighter and Freespace 2, this was by far the hardest.
12:40 man this reminded me of one of our DnD games,we played a futuristic type of game with costum rules and we got attacked by a bunch of automated drones.
Babylon 5’s Star Fury is one of the very few small spacecraft designs that actually looks like it was realistically designed to be manoeuvrable and agile while operating in a vacuum, as anyone who’s seen it will appreciate.
I like the take on space combat from the Honor Harrington books.
The tactics reverted to the 18th century with ships of the line volleying missiles at each other from across a solar system
Technological assumptions has to be extremely contrived to justify that. Honorverse tech is in no way "hard science fiction". Harder that Star Trek and Star Wars maybe, but still pretty soft.
Oh it absolutely is. But I like the creative concept
Honestly, in a realistic setting, some of the most valuabe tactics would be predictive engines and disguising techniques. If you can predict an attack, you can drastically improve your ability to evade or counter. If you can disguise yourself, you've essentially created space stealth.
Instead of stealth I'd expect decoys and perhaps jamming. I also wonder if deliberately deploying debris fields could be used to limit the speed of approaching objects, making them easier for a defense system to engage.
If your enemy used laser for point defence, and your long range weapons are missiles, it would highly behoove you to send in some initial missiles that are just full of highly refractive dust. Enemy can't effectively hit your missiles if they are shooting through dust that diffuses the beam. Speaking of decoys, debris, and laser-jamming dust; of all the scifi to consider and implement that, it was Gundam.
They did a lot of dumping fake asteroids, fake mechs, real debris and active jamming. They also readily make use of clouds of dust to deplete all sorts of directed energy weapons too. It's almost ironic that a franchise centered around close-in dogfights in giant humanoid robots also had all the rest too.
Masseffct at least tried, with the heat sinks and chilled hull. And it showed how limited that tech was both in cost and size of ship it worked on.
Decoys won't work. The plume will give away their mass. And if you're building a fleet of decoys with the same mass and drive of your ship, you might just as well have a fleet-still no stealth, though.
From _Atomic Rockets > Space War > Detection > All Right! I'll Use Decoys!:_
"Problem is, the rate (i.e. velocity) at which the plasma is coming out, manifests itself as a doppler shift in the characteristic emission lines of the plasma. As soon as a dedicated tracking sensor focuses on the target for a second or two, the game is up. If the plasma is coming out fast, it can't help but produce thrust proportional to mass flow rate (manifested as luminosity) times velocity (doppler). If the plasma is coming out slow (or fast but in opposing directions), it will be seen to be coming out slow and thus be recognized as not a real engine.
Conservation of momentum doesn't leave much room to hide thrust, or lack thereof, in a visible exhaust plume. If you know how much exhaust there is and how fast it is moving, you know how much thrust is being produced, period. Thrust estimation by observing plume properties is in fact a common procedure in laboratory testing of plasma thrusters, and while it's no substitute for a direct mechanical thrust measurement it will certainly provide the sort of order-of-magnitude values needed for decoy discrimination."
@@fsmoura that's where strats come in decoys don't have to be fully just decoys they could be turrets or missile launchers that look like your ships and meet 1 or 2 out of 3 of the things sensors use to identify fighter crafts. If enemy has mass, heat and velocity detection just give them the same thrusters they will have the same heat and velocity but not the same mass which would confuse your target to either deal with them or the smaller set of fighter craft that meet all 3 fully confirming what they are to their sensors. Then your decoys get into visible/attack range after being ignored and their actually carrying mines or nukes or just outright be their own missile launcher system and now your target is forced to engage them as well or they blow up with emp or other sensor jamming particles and maybe even missile disabling tech or beam dispersal tech and you have a field where your fighter crafts can safely approach from.
@@AGleeBustHard69 That's not 'stealth in space,' that's just 'having a fleet.' And that hypothetical is just 'ignoring a fleet of spaceships coming to attack you.' There's no 'visible range.' _Everything_ is visible all the way through. Detection will precede combat by months/years. There's also no fighters in space.
I enjoyed the space combat in the Expanse. That liquid they would mainline before doing high g maneuvers was a nice touch on the author's part.
Just rewatched the series. Man it’s an awesome show.
Have you guys seen Battlestar Galactica..
One of the creators of BSG was consulting on space fights in the Expanse..
I frikkin love BSG and The Expanse was also good. :)
i seen battlestar galactica for the first time like 4 years ago. it shot up to my top 3 favorite shows. im trying to get my brother to watch it@@dusermiginte4647
Some of the more hardcore science fiction stories immerse the crew in fluid, letting the crew breath oxygenated fluids. As many fluids don't compress, any saturated crewmember should likewise, not compress. I don't know how accurate that actually is, but one science fiction story, 'The Forever War' made great use of that.
@@DelverRootnose I’m not a doctor, but I am a pilot, and that doesn’t sound like it would make any difference. Fluid in your lungs instead of air wouldn’t change the g forces your body, and all its organs, experience.
I'm still a big fan of the whole "WWII dogfight in space" trope so I would be sad to see it go away, but I would like to also see games/tv/movies that further investigate other ways these things could play out based on real science, much like how the Expanse kind of walks the line between realistic and exciting space combat. I would def. watch a series of video where you break down classic space combat scenes from games and movies and depict the "correct" way those engagements would have gone with real science. This kind of stuff is fascinating to learn and you do a great job.
In my Sovereign Species series, the classic Sci-Fi Star Wars space battles will be proper battles, simply due to the sheer number of ships the combatants bring, whilst the more realistic space battles will be "Skirmishes" that take place after such engagements are either won or lost, and it's more a siege on both sides decided by who will be able to hold out the longest. The ships *can* hide, but they have so many of them that they can use them to fight climactic decisive battles and cause devastation, and for certain factions, production rates are *shockingly* fast.
And space fighters will take on harrassing/support roles for the bigger ships, or, in the Aldokk's case, spam so many drones that the Arek are forced to fight both them and their own vessels at the same time.
The benefit of a small ship isn’t that it can “dodge” laser fire, but that it is harder to aim across a large field of view.
Assuming a similar laser weapon range before the laser decoheres too much to be damaging, the smaller ship is much harder to hit - not because it dodges, but because the size of it in the field of view is smaller and thus requires more precision to hit.
Computers can aim better than humans, but they still aren’t perfect.
Some of the science fiction books I've read address the problem of seeing each other from across the solar system. They usually make it so you can detect them, but they detect you too and will deploy jamming and decoys.
The fighters they use to get closer and deliver a payload. The fighters get up to speed, turn off the engines, and then turn on jamming to hide. The people inside are to make last second decisions and adjust what the computers got wrong.
I really liked these battles
The ships in Starfield are not small due to any of the reasons which you listed. They are small because they land in gravity wells. The more massive the ship, the more thrust it takes to liftoff, which requires more fuel. It is simply a factor of the cube-square law. The UC Vigilance, a capital ship too large to land in a gravity well, exists and is realistically unbeatable by any of the small ships.
actually they are small because the xbox's RAM lead to a low part limit (which you can remove with a mod)
It's not a good idea to think about Starfield excuses with any rational intellectual vigor. There is no Delta V in this game world. Fuel is only used for FTL grav jumping. The game straight up states in plain text that fuel is not needed for landing, making orbit, or interplanetary travel within a system. If your big ship is too big for something, it's making it to another star system, not landing. The spaceship builder design mechanics make that very clear. Even after you make your grav jump, or sequence of consecutive jumps between systems without having to interact with the menu again, your fuel tanks instantly refill without any need to get fuel from anywhere.
This game has some of the worst science fiction I've ever read. It's space toddler stories for a concept of reality. To be clear, I don't mean stories for a toddler so that they don't further question what's going on, I mean stories conceived of and told by a toddler to make you think it wasn't them that used all the chocolate syrup, while their face and hands are clearly covered and sticky with chocolate goop.
To even begin to believe anything, you have to ignore every single gameplay mechanic that blatantly disagrees with what you find in books, on computers, and in the dialogue of NPCs. The entire range of your potential actions are non-canon in this universe. Bethesda could not provide a universe where is the things you do make sense in that universe, if that Universe involves guns or space, or physics I think. Starfield guns aren't as embarrassing as Fallout 4 guns, in terms of looking like they were designed by a 5-year-old. Starfield guns are like cargo cult level design, where parts that look like real guns that might work in some scenarios are arranged together in a way that doesn't relate to how guns work.
If you ignore the actions or potential actions of a player, the world building isn't as bad, unless you think about it for a moment in which case it still doesn't make sense.
My personal headcanon to deal with all of this is basically the opposite: only the things the player does are real, and everything that is written down or spoken by an NPC is some kind of a lie that may have been passed down by generations to keep people stupid and prevent them from trying to live in any way outside of their theme park NPC concentration camps.
@@mgmchenry Can you provide some examples of what you mean by your actions don't follow the canon of the game's universe?
@@Diactiahe can't because he's running his mouth off his ass
You are kind of missing the point... What the video is saying is you don't need a relatively small 1 person ship when you can have a huge starship with hundreds of crew, and weapons...
More importantly, you won't do any kind of dog fight, instead you get hundreds of missiles like in an Ace Combat game on your ass, if not instantly exploding from lasers.
And "Gravity Well" is really a misused term, but sure, even if that limits ship size, the main argument of "no dog fighting " still stands, and you still will just get missiles and lasers homed in on you with almost no way to dodge. Really one thing Spaceships don't do is sharp turns ...
Yes, I want realistic portrayals of space (your example at the end sounds like it would be a fantastic resource management game), but I also want magic space WW2 sometimes.
I think the biggest flaw with this video is it assumes that we have perfected space flight but not FTL or some kind of other transport like the hyperspace from Babylon 5 where ships can't be tracked from normal space, so there would still be an argument for space pirates and drone ships because a hostile could just appear right on top of you and launch a wave of drone fighters and quickly overwhelm any defenses you had, and in space warfare lasers would be utterly useless and easily defeated simply by coating your ship in a mirror surface a shield if you will and you could then angle that panel to fire the laser right back or simply constantly rotate your ship so the laser is never concentrated on one spot , or you could simply use a prism to redirect the laser
Mirrors are not effective laser defence. It would just melt the mirror, you'd instead want something like the space shuttle tiles that is an amazing insulator
@@Staladus lol no, You do understand that mirrors are use all the time in high power lasers right, when i say mirrors i am not talking about the the kind in your bathroom that reflect at most 85% of the light no I am talking about lab grade mirrors that bounce 99.9% of light you know the kind actively used in lab and military lasers .... meaning that only 0.01% of light gets through to generate heat the other 99.9% is reflected, so no a laser would not simply burn through a mirror.
Space ship tile on the other hand would be gone in seconds as they would absorb 100% of the laser and yep there are TH-cam videos about it and testing it, shuttle tiles only work because they hold back the heat long enough to allow the ship to survive the time it takes for re-entry and before heat soak gets to the soft inner, point to note is that space tiles only hold back temps of about 2000c and only for a short time where as current military lasers will heat the target to hotter than thew sun on beam contact so over 5500c, meaning that that tile would fail almost immediately where as a laser grade mirror would only absorb the equivalent of about 1c hence why they are used in current high lower lasers
@@EQINOX187 hm fair enough, my only concern now is that covering your ship entirely in mirrors would make maintenence a hell I imagine. Cuz theyll constantly get hit by micrometeorites and stuff which will reduce its effectiveness. The James Webb telescope's mirrors have been hit a ton, and while its had minimal impact on its image quality, I imagine itd become weakpoints when hit with a giant laser
All good points with one omission. In Starfield, you grav-drive into one of the planets in the system so you wouldn't be seen until you just appeared out of no where. So this would lend itself to being a surprise attack or being attacked by pirates lurking.
Thank you. I get there's a lot wrong with Starfield when it comes to immersion the more you know, but grav-jumping is faster than the light speed which means faster than your sensors with a good enough grav-drive you're jumping further than the maximum range of sensors. And before any space nerds comment yes I know nothing with mass is capable of moving faster than light.
Not going to try and avoid lasers cause all they do is fuck with your shields. Like bro, I'm not trusting a ship that can be blown up by lasers in space when I have to fly close to some massive stars that would be giving off more heat or radiation than a laser. Why even bring up lasers when we have particle weapons? Those are easily a much more terrifying weapon that seems to be a literal particle accelerator.
And even the whole thing about the effects of turning fast like Poe isn't entirely correct. Sure if we did that it would probably go exactly how he described. But no one from Starfield is from Earth. They all grew up on different planets, with different degrees of gravity affecting them which would dramatically change how their bodies worked. Not to mention that most of the ships in Starfield move slower than modern-day jets which would also be less g's you'd have to deal with.
@@soulsnatcher9696
Grav drives don't break physics because they're not traveling faster than light, They compress spacetime to make a "Warp Bubble"
Of all the scifi in Starfield, It's the most legit.
@@Celphirio You do know that asteroids, though fast, take a LONG time to get anywhere, right? Like, you literally lost more money waiting to rob that cargo ship than you could get out of it.
@@soulsnatcher9696 For there to be humans that have developed in non-earth environments long enough to evolve to adapt to them, humans first have to:
a) get there (possible enough)
b) survive the environment long enough to have enough generations (many) to adapt to it (ie: they dead)
Humans aren't going to survive on a planet with significantly increased gravitational forces long enough to evolve traits that adapt to it. Not unless it somehow is done across a chain of hundreds of planets over thousands of years, slowly increasing the human limit for each new planet. And if that's the case... it's not even worth considering since it's too far into the unknown of what would really happen. Perhaps we are already lizards by that point or figured out how to just become pure energy via tech.
@@JarieSuicune tell me you didn't play the game without telling me you didn't play the game they have been on multiple planets for multiple generations enough for two wars to happen, a whole group of settlers to get lost form a cult raises an army to start another war get beat and leave come back and become the negotiators for a completely different War, multiple teramorph attack that only happen every 70 years of a new settlement, the creation and banishment of mechs with ai (literal Titanfall), it's been like 800 something years since they left earth and no earthling was left because planet go bye bye. The ship that got lost literally drifted in space meaning there's a whole group of human adapted to space it's a whole character trait and everything.
And gravity isn't an issue they literally use gravity to rip a hole in the fabric of space and fast travel to different star systems my guy. It's call a grav-drive faster then light speed travel. Like I get your point and I agree it was a hang up for me cause we definitely visit planets with way more intense gravity then earth, till I realized they use gravity to travel at the speed of light. How did they unlock this technology play the game and find out it's free on game pass you don't even have to pay Bethesda.
So, as a general physicist and sci-fi writer myself, I’m fascinated by this topic (read Alistair Reynolds’ Revelation Space series for some really interesting and accurate examples). That said, there are ways to frame it where you don’t need to disrespect the media that so many people enjoy, or imply that they’re somehow wrong for doing so.
I mean people come to his house and in his house he can criticise/mock every media/product he likes. People are free to leave or criticise him for it and then there're people like me who are free to defend Kyles choice to criticise/mock said Media/Product🤷♂️ anyway you got my like for the other things you said and I'm gonna look into that book ty🙂
I think it all depends on what kind of universe you want to create. If you want hard sci-fi, this kind of realism could be really interesting if implemented well. It could also be interesting in less hard sci-fi settings. But that doesn't mean you can't still also have settings like Star Wars, where realism is really not the point. I consider Star Wars more fantasy than sci-fi, and I think it's perfectly fine to have a "space fantasy" setting.
That said, great video, you are definitely right when it comes to the realism
Thank you for pointing this out! The point of good Sci-fi isn't to be ultra realistic, it's to make commentary on the human condition. You can tell a compelling story in space with fantasy elements and it's still sci-fi.
The Expanse is sci-fi.
John Carter of Mars is sci-fi.
2001 is sci-fi.
Star Wars is sci-fi.
Star Trek is sci-fi.
Foundation is sci-fi.
Flash Gordon is sci-fi.
For All Mankind is sci-fi.
Yeah this just feels like Kyle is butthurt cause Starfield didn’t 100% match his expectations or was somehow violated by Todd Howard.
@@RangerHouston Who hasn't been violated by Todd at least once by now? lol
I thought of a partial solution to the "air lock boarding" problem: the pirate ship needs an exit port that's a giant suction cup. Attach to the hull of the other ship, suck the air out, breach the hull with tools/explosives, and board through the hole you just made. Now you're entering through a wall instead of a door, and the other ship will lose pressure if it detaches.
I think both the "horizons" issue and "space piracy" issue would be complicated by operations around planets and moons, although this depends on how well-settled a solar system is. Pirates can potentially hide in the atmosphere of a planet to intercept ships slowing down on their landing approaches with missiles, bots, or tractor beams, or perhaps just hijack their navigational signals to direct them to a fake landing site. A remote enough outpost might not have the resources to combat said pirates, and an important enough hostage might preclude a massive military response.
Don't forget social engineering. Pretend to be a stricken ship in need of rescue, then hijack your rescuers. Where there's a will, there's a way.
Would love to get people's opinions on the ship from"The Last Starfighter" 360 degree fire capability independent of ship motion always seemed like a plausible idea.
The Last Starfighter was the only Film that really got that right, even tho a small fighter doesn't really make sense, doesn't it(but well the Starfighter in that film wasn't that small tbh)
Yeah the idea of the fighter itself is probably the least plausible thing about the gunstar. A manned craft is always going to be limited by having to account for their pilots, who can't handle g forces as well as an unmanned craft, which can theoretically be designed for maximum thrust to weight without having to worry about killing its operators.
It's why they don't have fighters in the Expanse, as I understand it. You just can't outrun munitions in space.
I suspect you wouldn't be able to control the spin without wasting a lot of fuel.
@@magicalgirl1296 there's one type of munition you can outrun in space; unguided ones
technically, the rocinante could outrun its own railgun rounds (kinetic weapons are like the worst weapon to use in space, unless it's a missile, where's only kinda shit)
Babylon 5's Starfury ships were able to do this manouvers, too.
I really like how The Three Body Problem addresses these realistic space combat concerns but still makes it extremely engaging. Great books.
Everyone becomes human salsa was traumatic, but funny.
@richmondmanga8631I'm voting for one shiny boy. But who wins, one shiny boy or a 4d human?
I don't think that can seriously be qualified as combat so much as a sufficiently advanced alien playing with insects.
We're looking at a Legend of the Galactic Heroes battlefield, where huge fleets maneuver and position themselves and exchange fire back and forth at each other. Fighters only come out when the fleets get into close range, it ends up looking like something more resembling a battle out the Napoleonic era with ships fighting in ranks. But hey when you can see each other approaching unless they were using galactic bodies to hide their approach, it just quickly becomes a battle of attrition and who has more guns to fire.
I havent seen this in the show but ill assume ships bunch up to protect themselves from long range missiles or among other things (like communication aswell) If not a bunch of smaller, more agile fleets should come up on top.
We see this when the numerically superior alliance fleet got defeated in detail on the first battles of the show
FTL travel, as is accomplished in Starfield would make dogfighting a necessary objective. If you can instantly appear wherever you wanted to, you could jump into point blank range take out your target and be gone before any ship longer than a few light minutes away could even respond.
A point: we can detect Voyager because it's actively trying to contact us and we know exactly where it is. But what if there were several small ships painted in Vanta black to blend in with the back drop of space, and they were either going radio silent or using communication signals that were directional and pointed away from their target? OR, they approached with something like the sun directly behind them so that any of their radio sources could get drowned out by all the radiation and light from the star?
Also the voyager signal being received by a virtual radiotelescope essentially 8 km in diameter.
"ships painted in Vanta black to blend in with the back drop of space" Space is not cold like black death or black drop, space is 3 Kelvin degrees hot and space craft will be hotter like 100 °K but painting Vanta black would be very hot from sun radiation.
I'd say for that one, the main reason is it is more fun. A bit like if you were to show how real hacking is done in a computer hacker movie.
I understand your point, and your movie pitch is great, but that would be one movie. I'm not sure this scene could be reused numerous times before it got old, while space dogfights can be entertaining numerous times if well used.
I would say you also mischaracterized bit how the smaller spacecraft are used generally. As a general rule they come out of the bigger ship once the bigger ship as closed the distance with it's intended target, so they are not meant to start chasing from millions of kilometers away. As for dodging, I agree that you cannot dodge lasers once fired, I think what they try to represent in movies is that by moving around the opponent doesn't get a lock on you, so when they shoot you're not where the laser will hit, from the start.
Now, I do understand that the aiming computer would not get fooled by those maneuvers, but again, it is more entertaining that way. A bit like if I actually started to imagine how a world where people are pretty much as evolved as us but also magic users really exist (ex: DnD), it would most likely be closer be less fun than the fantasy world we play with.
Overall, I enjoy when they use science correctly in entertainment media, but I wouldn't do it at the expense of the entertainment part. Space battle would most likely get used a lot less if we tried to be physic accurate, and in that case I would say that fun trumps realism. I'm not saying you couldn't make a few good movies with accurate space physic, but these would be other kind of movies. They'd be entertaining in their own way, but I wouldn't remove the "fantasy sci-fi" genre just because we know it wouldn't actually work. It is still fun.
Nice thoughts.
I want to know what the most realistic future sci-fi film is
Also, props to Star Trek for being ahead of the curve on this one. I don't think I recall many, if any, dog fights in Star Trek. It's usually a battle between multiple large capital ships.
Partly it's a case of Star Trek being "dated" - TOS set a precedent, and of course TOS predated Star Wars by a decade (ironically, TOS is actually often better in one specific respect than its sequels because of budget and SFX concerns - it tended to avoid showing multiple ships at the same time so battles often took place at longer distances).
From what I've seen, it's usually capital ship vs capital ship or shuttle vs shuttle (or the equivalent). In any situation where it's capital ship vs shuttle, the shuttle is either almost instantly overwhelmed and destroyed/captured or the capital ship has something more important to focus on and the shuttle(s) are being used in an unorthodox manner.
@@PhotonBeast USS Odyssey vs. Hem Hadars is perhaps the only instance where we see a big capital ship confronted by small "fighters".
@@andreabindolini7452 The Jem'Hadar ship are small but closer to corvette ships than fighters. They're just under 100m long and have a crew complement of 43.
"I can see you, Kirk. Can you see me?"
Star Trek very much falls into the traps that Kyle is talking about - treating space as the ocean, and space ships as submarines being the big one. While TOS doesn't have many "dogfights," there are quite a few in later series. Fights against the Borg in TNG, the whole Jem'Hadar war in DS9, multiple incidents in Voyager...even before these examples, the major battles are heavily inspired by WW2 submarine combat. Watch any of the battles between the Enterprise and a Klingon ship with a cloaking device, and the parallels with sub combat become obvious - the ambush, waiting for the right time to fire, trying to find the other ship before they find you, even the wolfpack tactics used in a few episodes.
I remember once being told that space combat would be far closer to submarine warfare than anything that has ever appeared in most media. I think this pretty much agrees with that statement
I suggest watching "Blue sub 6"
Except a lot of sub combat is about detection and avoiding detection. In space there is no stealth.
@@xthebumpx yes there is a lot of stealth, the guy in the video based stealth only on light. but what if you turned of the outside light, and the cabin had windows like sunglasses that prevent light from escaping. then you would never detect the object without an active censor.
@@N04hrk Light isn't the primary way to detect ships in space. Search for stealth in space videos on TH-cam.
@@N04hrk All relevant detection in space happens via IR light, not visible light. You can't hide in space.
I feel like there’s one more advantage of small ships at this scale which is that small ships are harder to hit, because the margin of error for aiming becomes incredibly high at these ranges and even a small difference in places that can be hit could make an important difference in terms of effective range and accuracy. A ship with 10x less surface area requires 10x more accuracy to hit, and because the limits of accuracy are already super high this could matter
Another advantage is quantity. If you're in a single large ship, not only is it easier to hit, but if they take out one ship, it's all over. If there are dozens or hundreds of small ships coming at you, you need to aim much better, and take all of them out. If even one ship gets through, you're in danger. Of course, that just goes back to, why would these ships need to be manned? Isn't it exactly the same if all of these "ships" are really missiles or torpedoes?
@@QBCPerditionUnmanned missile launch platforms? Unmanned asteroid redirectors?
Or you could just use AI controlled missiles that home in on their target when they get close and accellerate at a G rate that would be impossible for a living person to survive.
@@QBCPerditionWell, the other side to quantity is location.
If I can build 10 frigates for the cost of one battleship now I can cover 10 star systems instead of one.
In settings with handwavium artificial gravity (which is most of them) there'd be a maneuverability advantage too
As a pirate you simple puncture the outside of the merchant ship and wait a day or two - then cut in and take everything from the dead people.
No need to tow the ship - and its definitely easier in space than port. They can watch you do it, but by the time they have seen the images and sent a response you are gone
The part about kill bots heading towards your large ship is a beautiful way to say "The trolley problem but space." I love it :')
"Some die or everyone dies" isn't the trolley problem. While it could be easily confused with the trolley problem it's not. The point of the trolley problem is to pick who survives between two different groups. If there is only one outcome where _anyone_ survives then the trolley problem does not apply.
the Forever War books had great space battles. all the crew got in a pods that kept them safe from not getting killed by inertia while the computer handled the high G maneuvers away from and fired missiles at another ship a million kilometer ways.
The Forever War is quite good in how Space War would unfold, yes.
@@paavobergmann4920 totally. especially with how it handles relativity and time dilation
"..but...we´ve been gone like, 8weeks?"@@sweepauto
Most assuredly, it was fascinating
To be fair, they usually have energy shields in said sci-fi series which is why crashing into the death star with an asteroid wasn't really optional. They also tend to use non-laser energy weapons (i.e, plasma launchers, as fictional as they are) and you get some funny throwbacks like flak cannons here and there.
Elite Dangerous does it all pretty well, I'd say. Stealth doesn't formally exist in the series, so they spec heavily into defenses, offenses, and maneuverability. You get some autonomous things such as weapon targeting and targeting detection systems, but a lot of things require human decision-making. They still use small spacecraft but they pair with much larger fleet carriers to wear down said shields. The fights are less WW2 dogfights and more heavy Broadside slugoffs of the 17th/18th century.
Read Tesla
As someone who’s dipped my toes into as many space sims as I could get my grimy little PC gamer hands on, I so appreciate you explaining the science of warfare in the context of space as so many games get it wrong, sometimes acceptably so for artistic measure, but usually it’s just a huge letdown at the missed opportunity for science-y immersion.
Small, detachable launch platforms have a couple of advantages that didn't come up in the video:
- they let you launch from multiple angles, bypassing some forms of defense
- they let you split your forces so long as their life-support lasts
There's also the occasional scenario where you want to engage in hostilities near a planet, when suddenly there is a horizon again, and fighters are back on the agenda.
An actual space battle may take place tens of thousands kilometers away from each other.
1. so multiple angles would probably just be less than 1° angle from each other
2. splitting your may help if you're escaping but for attacking then it's back to 1
3. some landing crafts and eacort for those would be nice for landing in a planet but if just want to attack a hostile planet then some orbital strikes should do
Yep. In Command and Conquer 3, the Alien force had a carrier for this reason, it was even called "Planetary Assault Carrier" which launched small gun-drones. Another feature of that ship is that it could create an "ion storm" which sort of resembles a very large thunder-storm cloud, think of it like a giant smoke-screen which could disrupt detectors. This could make sense then for having small fighter crafts hide within the storm making them hard to target.
Fighters also come back on when operating in and around any sort of debris field, be that the wreckage of a destroyed ship or space station, or an asteroid belt.
@@GremlinSciences won't space debris be an issue? even a single SPEK of dust can cause a clusterfuck of issues due to unending momentum.
@@GremlinSciences Nope. Fighters still suck at that. Space is really, really big, and with no drag, debris rapidly diffuses to the point where the size of the spacecraft attempting to navigate through it becomes pretty much a non-issue. That also goes for asteroid belts, too, where individual asteroids are thousands of kilometers apart, at the least, not at all like the _Empire Strikes Back._
Not to mention that smaller spacecraft would have less space/mass for sensors and point-defense weapons than larger ones. Even if it only had today's fission reactors and diode lasers, something the size of the Death Star could easily travel through asteroid belts and debris fields, evading the big stuff and deflecting the little stuff.
One Scifi “fighter” trope that kind of made sense was Wraith “darts” from Stargate Atlantis. The fleet consisted of battleships that released hundreds of fighters that traveled to the planet to find & scoop up people - who they would later eat (sort of) - rather than just blowing stuff up from orbit.
In the novel StarWorld by Harry Harrison, the rebel fleet took out the Federal Fleet (bad guys) using just cannon balls that they launched as a swarm leading them as they swung around Earth. Harrison used physics in his To the Stars Trilogy back in 1980. It was a good read.
The did something similar in the expanse books (presumably the series too) Small rocks much larger target. The same with The Revelation space books, just start lobbing rocks at a pursing craft at high speed
There are a number of issues with this, I'll just number them so it's easier.
1. Modern militaries can already detect and fire at each other over the horizon yet planes and Aircraft carriers still exist.
2. A large object in space is always going to be easier to spot and hit than a smaller object in space.
3. While there is no friction in space, mass still exists and it's easier, takes less fuel and is faster to accelerate and decelerate an object with less mass(IE something that is smaller like a fighter) than an object with more mass.
4. The Voyager 1 isn't trying to be stealthy and we also know where to look and what to look for, in fact it would be kind of pointless if it was stealthy. WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO DETECT IT!!!! If we sent an F-35 to the edge of the solar system we would never find it.
5. Engagement ranges are hard to quantify, As mentioned in point 1, we already can spot and fire at aircraft from thousands of miles away, this does not mean that if we fired at an aircraft a thousand miles away we would hit it as it would also know that we had fired at it from a 1000 miles away and has 1000 miles of travel time to react within.
6. Bigger engines don't mean faster space ships. It's a matter of thrust to weight ratio and in space it's also a matter of time under acceleration.
7. Space Fighters(or ships in general) don't have to be manned so don't neceserally have to worry about G force. You also would not be forced to accelerate and decelerate quickly just because you are in a small ship(that would more depend on tactical considerations that would make you decide to decelerate in the first place, which in space would probably not happen often as keeping your velocity would always be the better option).
8.While the speed of light is fast so is the speed in which an object travels in space and also as Space is vast the distance at which lasers would be fired is going to be quite far as well. Though the speed of light is also not that fast when you are talking about the distances in involved in space. You would need to get your ship close enough that you could account for the velocity the ship you are aiming is travelling at. You also don't need to change your course or velocity much to avoid a laser or any other weapon, remember, we are talking about objects in space whizzing around at insane speeds, all you would need to do is adjust course by just a fraction and you will be nowhere near the point your opponent aimed at.
9.I agree that pilots are not necessary but disagree that a space fighter would not be better than a missile, see point 1, we already can spot and fire at targets over the horizon yet we still use fighter planes.
10. Larger ships have more mass, are easier to detect and easier to hit. There is also cost and combat losses to think about, if you bring one ship and it gets hit then you have lost 100% of your force, if you bring two smaller and cheaper ships and one gets hit then you have lost 50%, and on that goes. It's hard to say how large a laser would be or would need to be given that this is Sci-fi so we are talking about levels of technologies and abilities that don't exist yet.
11. Again, we can only detect Voyager 1 because we made it to be detected, also detecting is not reacting or preventing. To stop a pirate you also need a friendly ship within range that can intervene and remember, space is vast so that's not going to be likely. Added to this, you must remember that whatever signal you pick up on still can only be relayed back at the speed of light at the most, which is not that fast in space. It could quite literally be years before the signal telling you that there was a space pirate in the first place even reached you.
12. Detecting a change of course does not mean you could react to it and there would be many other reasons to change course as well. Narrow kill boxes are a feature of real life cargo ships as well, in fact they are a feature of a lot of environments where fights take place such as trenches or indoors. But of course fights still take place there. You also don't actually have to fight for a ship you can just threaten to blow it to smithereens and accept their surrender. Most pirates don't actually fight for the vessels they take.
13. Even if they did watch you do it, it's very likely they are watching you do it a year ago or more. They wouldn't be able to do much about it.
14. Robbing people on land has it's own risks, like you know, the police. The whole reason piracy exists is because a pirate can isolate and rob a victim without anybody being able to help them, which when we are talking about the vast expanses of space, would not be difficult to do there either.
So in summary, pretty much everything you said was wrong and silly.
I would like to mention Children of a Dead Earth, it's a realistic space combat game. Features only plausible future technologies too.
6:18, that's acceleration. Delta-V is the spaceship equivalent of mileage.
what's hilarious is that children of a dead earth's laser technology is basically what was available in the 1970s
its realism suffers from its development process
dev went so hard into simulating everything that he forgot many vital aspects and also did choices that happen to not be realistic
radiation shielding isn't modelled, half of real concepts/developments on weapons and drives aren't featured, there is not a single display of sensors and electronics warfare
it's a fairly memorable hard sci-fi game, though people hope to see one day one that is actually more realistic and doesn't try so hard to have every single setting tweak-able on its different systems
@@Eliphasersome shortcomings got mods solutions, but yeah idk about radiation shielding crew from nuclear power source
@@hobog generally the game tries to model too many things but ends up forgetting a lot of important stuff
lack of many realistic/possible propulsion systems (some can pretty much not be modded either, like orion pulse drives), essentially no electronics warfare, unrealistic depiction of most weaponry (because it tries too hard to model them in far too much detail, but has assumptions that aren't entirely correct to begin with), etc
it's a deranged game perfectly suited to scare people away from hard sci-fi, without even being that realistic, though it has a place as one of the few iconic hard sci-fi media works there is
rad shielding is really messing with how ships look though, they'd be better off shaped like a bicone, inverted cone or cigar, rather than a strict cylinder or cone like is usually shown, to minimise the radiation shield size and keep a small shadow shield
More than half the fun of space combat would be to design the ships and the missiles and program them. People spend so much time in the starfield ship builder but nobody likes to point that out. Awesome stuff Kyle!
Yeah, but then someone goes and makes Aurora 4X.
You can do that in space engineers, and as a lifelong programmer, that's what I did. It was more than half the fun of playing that game, but actual combat was terrifying because playing against other humans who were doing the same, conflict meant the destruction of property and Engineering that took days or sometimes weeks to put together, and hoping that your scripts don't fail.
It was a lot like actual combat, because no plans survives contact with the enemy.
People spend time playing Bethesda crap? Bummer
No real programming, but maybe pick up Children Of a Dead Earth. You can design realistic ships for realistic combat all the way down to the composition of the nukes you load in your custom-made missles.
@@mgmchenrythis is where you add vector thrust, delete or rebalance gyroscopes to the IRL counterparts and add aerodynamics, stuff gets so complicated people decide it's not worth attacking each other anymore
I'd highly recommend Terra Invicta, the space combat is incredibly well modeled and very cool to experience
I read a science fiction book that had a very good argument against large space vessels in war. Essentially it had to do with the momentous energy that could be used in weapons. Either fast kinetic mass thrust into an area or nuclear bombs meaning you could not make a vessel strong enough to survive even a grazing hit.
His take was every ship would be modular able to break apart into dozens, hundreds or thousands of vessels for battle and then reform. That way ships could escape by offering too many targets.
Why even combine? Why not just have a fleet of little ships?
@@KingOpenReview The idea was the engine units would be in one grouping with a backup and thus for long voyages at 1% to 10% C where the ship would be very hard to attack it was better to be combined but in system or when confronted for war they would break apart.
There was an older scifi miniature ttrpg that actually had "realistic" space combat although I can't remember its name. It took into account many of those things you mention. Unfortunately while I enjoyed it it never really took off and was gone in a year. People like the fictional action sometimes more than realism.
Sounds like you're talking about Attack Vector: Tactical. I have a mint copy I bought years ago and never played since I moved away from my gamer friends, but some day...
My favorite depictions of realistic space combat ever are in the Kris Longknife book series. Fleets of ships made of programmable smart matter blasting each other with laser batteries from tens of thousands of kilometers can actually be quite exciting. The series isn't strictly hard scifi, but it stays pretty close most of the time.