Space warfare xv rocketpunk manifesto8/10/2023 They travel relatively faster than missiles, so can reach a target much faster. On the other hand, there are 'bullets', projectiles that are uncontrolled after firing. A downside of the missile would be that such a large projectile are relatively easy to destroy, as it travels at low relativistic speeds and needs to physically hit, or come close to, the target. Missiles, which have a thrust and control mechanism built into them, would be able to correct their paths to suit a moving target. Secondly, any projectiles fired have reduced physical effects acting on them due to the lack of atmosphere or standard gravity. Therefore, a proper space 'flanking' procedure would leave attacking from 'above','below', or from the direction of the engines. A space vessel would need to scan for objects in a spherical orientation rather than a circular one, because attacking an enemy in space from any orientation they could return fire easily is not tactically intelligent. These are more realistic ideas of space warfare.įirstly, war in space is fought in 3 dimensions, in that there is no 'up' or 'down', 'north, south', etc., so any position of a vessel could only be relative to a predesignated point or object (the underside of the vessel faces Earth to start, so Earth would be 'below' the ship) and the ship's coordinate system would be aligned as such. Classic films don't portray space combat in a realistic way. Well thought out, hard sif-fi space combat is incredibly difficult to understand in the first place. They show it similar to the 2D sea battles of the time of ships, subs, etc. I have a problem with how space combat is portrayed in film and games. Know any others? Message #scifi and let your friendly mods know!
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |