Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SgtAlex86]

You're absolutely, right, that's magic. Reactionless drives are magic, they violate basic laws of physics that have been tried and tested and form the bedrock of our understanding of the world. And they'll never happen. It's fine if you want fighters in your story because you don't care about science (makes me wonder why you care about sci fi) but don't try to claim that it's plausible.

'In the future we'll have technology that will allow me to keep my lazy sci fi tropes' is not an argument. I don't have to make assumptions about future technology to make my case-- you do.

this is scifi scifi is about science we do not understand... like cars if u were living in middle ages thats why ur point is simply wrong, im not saying we will get better drives than rocket engines what im saying is there wont be any space combat unless we do... and that makes this whole debate kinda moot dosnt it... :3

besides laws of physics are theories any and all such "laws" are subject to change if there is new break through in science witch happens all the time...  

[Iscariot]

That's a hilariously juvenile response and I won't even take the personal time to address it myself.

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/respectscience.php

Highlight:

"So What If I Broke Twelve Laws Of Physics? It's Only Science FICTION"

This silly opinion implies that the word "fiction" nullifies the word "science." Since it is "fiction", and fiction is by definition "not true", then we can make "not true" any and all science that gets in the way, right?

Hogwash. By the same logic, the term "detective fiction" gives the author license to totally ignore standard procedures and techniques used by detectives, the term "military fiction" allows the author to totally ignore military tactics and strategy, and the term "historical fiction" allows the author to totally ignore the relevant history.

Imagine a historical fiction novel where Napoleon at Waterloo defeated the knights of the Round Table by using the Enola Gay to drop an atom bomb. It's OK because it is "fiction", right?

This non-argument is the favorite of science fiction fans who like all the zipping spaceships and ray guns but who actually know practically nothing about real science. And who cannot be bothered to go learn.

[Iscariot]

We are arguing different things you don't want a missile you want a kamikaze drone you want way more than a warhead, guidance and engine.

No, no we're not. Again, the fundamental difference between a missile and a 'drone' or a 'fighter' is that a drone and a fighter have to come back. If it doesn't have to come back, it's a missile. Period.

[Hopelessnoob]

Not all drones have to come back....

[Iscariot]

No, but they're designed to.

[Hopelessnoob]

Several light drones that you can launch by hand are never supposed to come back, just provide a bit of surveillance.

[arwan]

have you guys ever watched a comedy where two guys are arguing some ridiculous point like.. say the carry weight of an unladen swallow and the main actor just moves on.. then hours or even days later (show or movie time) the main actor comes full circle and those two men are still arguing that same point...

yea i just did that with this forum thread.. at least 12 hours and no progress LOL... holly crap is all i got to say... holly crap.

Iscariot i have not counted.. but i believe you have put in about 40 posts in that amount of time.. i imagine most of them are in this very thread LMAO.

[Iscariot]

Several light drones that you can launch by hand are never supposed to come back, just provide a bit of surveillance.

We're talking about weapon systems.

have you guys ever watched a comedy where two guys are arguing some ridiculous point like.. say the carry weight of an unladen swallow and the main actor just moves on.. then hours or even days later (show or movie time) the main actor comes full circle and those two men are still arguing that same point...

yea i just did that with this forum thread.. at least 12 hours and no progress LOL... holly crap is all i got to say... holly crap.

Iscariot i have not counted.. but i believe you have put in about 40 posts in that amount of time.. i imagine most of them are in this very thread LMAO.

Not to paraphrase internet jargon, but 'U MAD?' If you're tired about reading about it, then convince people to stop arguing with me. I'll defend my points as long as I feel that they're valid, and nothing has come close to convincing me otherwise. I don't see how any of this is your business if you're annoyed.

[arwan]

who said i was mad LOL i have no control over what anyone does but myself i thought i implied it was funny reading. keep it up.

let me further clarify by saying i think its funny how everyone keeps arguing with you the same points over and over with the same conclusions. and that again.. that does not bother me.

[SgtAlex86]

That's a hilariously juvenile response and I won't even take the personal time to address it myself.

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/respectscience.php

Highlight:

"So What If I Broke Twelve Laws Of Physics? It's Only Science FICTION"

This silly opinion implies that the word "fiction" nullifies the word "science." Since it is "fiction", and fiction is by definition "not true", then we can make "not true" any and all science that gets in the way, right?

Hogwash. By the same logic, the term "detective fiction" gives the author license to totally ignore standard procedures and techniques used by detectives, the term "military fiction" allows the author to totally ignore military tactics and strategy, and the term "historical fiction" allows the author to totally ignore the relevant history.

Imagine a historical fiction novel where Napoleon at Waterloo defeated the knights of the Round Table by using the Enola Gay to drop an atom bomb. It's OK because it is "fiction", right?

This non-argument is the favorite of science fiction fans who like all the zipping spaceships and ray guns but who actually know practically nothing about real science. And who cannot be bothered to go learn.

ok so lets take out all the "fiction" and lets see what we have left... tanker frigate cause u need to have atleast 90% of mass as fuel tank or u will run out before actually going anywhere... with machine gun... because mass restrictions u cant carry any missiles just too hevy... and acceleration of 1... have fun  and there is no such thing as practical laser u need too much energy and current science cannot produce enough on the scale to fit on anything u can get into space... if u manage to fit cannon on your battleship(thats actually big fuel tank with engine) every time u fire u have to spend 15mins burning that said fuel to stop the bloody ship from spinning... 

[Iscariot]

Hey, don't look at me for that, once these people start understanding basic principles of physics and science, then I can stop making the same points. Ah well, I'm happy enough to have pushed the argument into semantics now, a quiet admission that yes, a missiles and a fighter operate by the same principles in space.

[Iscariot]

ok so lets take out all the "fiction" and lets see what we have left... tanker frigate cause u need to have atleast 90% of mass as fuel tank or u will run out before actually going anywhere... with machine gun... because mass restrictions u cant carry any missiles just too hevy... and acceleration of 1... have fun  and there is no such thing as practical laser u need too much energy and current science cannot produce enough on the scale to fit on anything u can get into space... if u manage to fit cannon on your battleship(thats actually big fuel tank with engine) every time u fire u have to spend 15mins burning that said fuel to stop the bloody ship from spinning... 

I never said there weren't problems with the idea of a battleship either, nor did I say that we should take out all the fiction. As I have said repeatedly at this point-- and arwan is probably getting a bit of a chuckle out of this-- I am talking about REAL LIFE.

Whatever the issues may be with a battleship, technical, economical, or otherwise, they have fewer problems that star fighters. I'd also like to note that your response here is essentially you throwing up your hands and accusing me of not being fun, rather than addressing the many, many holes I've poked in both your argument and the concept of space fighters in general.

[SgtAlex86]

actually im saying that u are saying that because of science theres no point in sciencefiction
because face it, sciencefiction is all bout not letting any real science get in the way of "fun" if u can fit some science in the contex good for u it might add some depth but the actual science has never been the point :3

and fighters do not act like missiles in space
fighters shoot missiles...
who says u need carrier for fighter?

[Iscariot]

No, science fiction is about making fiction about science. If all you want to do is have fun then go muck about in fantasy. It's not like fantasy can't have 'spaceships' or silly fighters and swooping flying vehicles; look at Final Fantasy.

A fighter that doesn't have a carrier is just a small warship. I have no problem with those. If you were reading any of my posts, I even said that a warship could have one crewman if the automation was good enough.

If you want to define a fighter as a small warship then we have no more argument. Those are perfectly viable, albeit short ranged and lacking staying power, a tradeoff for greater short term agility. If you insist on fighters which are not made for independent operation and must rearm and refuel at a mother ship, then I am happy to continue hammering home the same points I've been saying all day.

At the end of the day, I don't really care what you call it-- weapons in space that fly out, deliver ordnance, and then have to fly back, WHATEVER YOU CALL IT, make no sense, and I have never argued against anything else.

[arwan]

We need interstellar missiles that launch interplanetary missiles that launch huge missiles that launch ships that launch large missiles that launch fighters that launch mini MRMs, which break into a cluster of little missiles which fragment into a bunch of 1-damage frag bits.

Those would by far be the most effective at killing... your computer.

you forgot the nano robots that then eat your target.