I wish he would constrain the distance of engagement he is discussing, because that has more effect on weapons and tactics than anything else.
An example of a spot I think he is dead wrong on:
In an atmosphere, it makes sense that smaller craft are faster and more maneuverable; both gravity and air resistance work against larger craft.
However, in space, neither of these are a factor, so it makes less sense that space combat be so dependent on small-scale fighters.
In atmosphere: Gravity, yes very much as it's effect on a vessle goes up proportionately to the cube of the linear dimension. Air resistance to a much lessor degree since its increase is proportional to the square of the linear dimension.
But when you apply it to space, gravity can be equated to mass, which is the primary limit to movement there. That gives the smaller vessel, again, a huge advantage in mobility.
Space/Science » in reply to War in the Heavens.
Not sure I agree with this guy
The whole thread (28 posts)
- War in the Heavens.
- re: War in the Heavens.
- How do they afford all these battleships - isn't that kindof expensive? (n/t)
- Comparative costs
- So you've read SF by Alastair Reynolds? He writes about the possibility of xenocidal interstellar machines.
- Office of Home World Security
- Which begs the question of what exactly they are fighting over to make it worthwhile? (n/t)
- Comparative costs
- Not sure I agree with this guy