Greetings!

Welcome to Scifi-Meshes.com! Click one of these buttons to join in on the fun.

3DA "Realistic" space fighter in Blender.

BorklessBorkless171 Posts: 0Member
edited November 2012 in Work in Progress #1
After finding the stupidly fun sandbox space game Kerbal Space Program and stumbling upon this flickr thread, I got to thinking: All sci-fi space fighters seem to draw on fighter planes or jets for their inspiration. What would a real-world style fighter look like.

(Mind you, I am in now way an aerospace expert, so this ship still relies on the rule-of-cool to some extent.)

So I built this. A pure-space fighter. Lofted into orbit atop a conventional medium-lift booster, once it broke atmo, it would never again touch it. (It's a little low poly as I hope to animate it).
8IWEB.jpg
Twin radiator wings dump heat from the craft's systems, and two liquid cooled .50 caliber machine guns provide firepower. A 1.75m diameter pod holds the pilot, and a large window provides visibility after radar merge. (I know the window and guns aren't the most realistic, but they're cool.)

here's a better view of the top.
TFkxl.jpg
External stowage racks may eventually adorn the central spindle, allowing for drop-tanks, missiles, sensor packages, etc, to be hot-swapped. Also, the ship can fold its wings to fit into a standard pressurized inter-modal stowage can. Said can provides a "shirtsleeves" environment, simplifying repair and re-arming work. (It also hides the fighter from casual observation.)

The engine bell and RCS system.
k83FS.jpg
The engine is on gimbles, for maximum maneuverability. (The fuel tank is a bit small, but I'm hand-waving it by saying better rockets have been invented.)
98342.jpg
Post edited by Borkless on
Tagged:
«1

Posts

  • sojournersojourner0 Posts: 0Member
    Cute design. I suggest perusing Atomic Rocket for some really good research. Don't discount the website based on the first page. Mouse over the red "Show Topic" button in the top right corner of the page and start reading. Some great stuff there.
  • SaquistSaquist1 Posts: 0Member
    NOTE:
    Future space combat fighters will likely be hypersonic air breathing hybrid rockets such as a scramjet/rocket formed with lifting bodies and space ages materials to resist reentry and flight friction through the atmosphere. While missiles are a possibility they and especially any kinetic weapons such as a gun, rail gun or projectile of any kind will likely result in the undesirable alteration of it's orbit. Thus lasers are the only real weapon space fighters could have. These weapons would need to be only powerful enough to damage the opponents heat tiles to force a dangerous reentry at which point they would disengage.

    Such a fighter was feature in the book "Storming Intrepid" by Payne Harrison
    Also featured in certain NASA documents as the X-656
    Also featured in History Channel special of Generation 5 Aircraft.

    Capsuled fighter craft such as your own would likely not require huge propellant stores due to the use (with luck) polywell nuclear fusion rockets. Such ships would likely have waste heat issues need rather large radiators or active cooling systems when the engines are in operation. Bell sized nozzles wouldn't be necessary as they could generate high specific impulses through ion streams. In some cases with but a drop of aneutronic fuel.
  • BorklessBorkless171 Posts: 0Member
    sojourner wrote: »
    Cute design. I suggest perusing Atomic Rocket for some really good research. Don't discount the website based on the first page. Mouse over the red "Show Topic" button in the top right corner of the page and start reading. Some great stuff there.

    I have actually spent quite a lot of time browsing Atomic Rockets. Too much time, in fact.
    Saquist wrote: »
    NOTE:
    Future space combat fighters will likely be hypersonic air breathing hybrid rockets such as a scramjet/rocket formed with lifting bodies and space ages materials to resist reentry and flight friction through the atmosphere. While missiles are a possibility they and especially any kinetic weapons such as a gun, rail gun or projectile of any kind will likely result in the undesirable alteration of it's orbit. Thus lasers are the only real weapon space fighters could have. These weapons would need to be only powerful enough to damage the opponents heat tiles to force a dangerous reentry at which point they would disengage.

    Such a fighter was feature in the book "Storming Intrepid" by Payne Harrison
    Also featured in certain NASA documents as the X-656
    Also featured in History Channel special of Generation 5 Aircraft.

    Capsuled fighter craft such as your own would likely not require huge propellant stores due to the use (with luck) polywell nuclear fusion rockets. Such ships would likely have waste heat issues need rather large radiators or active cooling systems when the engines are in operation. Bell sized nozzles wouldn't be necessary as they could generate high specific impulses through ion streams. In some cases with but a drop of aneutronic fuel.

    That's some cool stuff, but I was going for more of a 60's space-race vibe for this one. Besides, this craft is designed to fight mostly in transfers (interplanetary space, as well as the space between moons). Though if I ever built an Interceptor-type craft, I'll keep those ideas in mind.

    Also, the 'verse this craft inhabits (what i've fleshed out at least) has nuclear energy laying undiscovered. With no nukes, dropping things from orbit became the WMD of choice, meaning of course, one needed control of space.
  • StonecoldStonecold331 Posts: 0Member
    I like this one. By the way, propellant tank and guns are ok, if you think of this vehicle as an orbital-only. Launch to intercept, orbit, intercept, then return the polot to the ground in escape module. Or, dock with a space station of sorts. Guns were actually tested in space during "Almaz" space program. Development of military space stations, that is. And a small orbital craft, with a 20mm cannon on board was actually tested. The role, it was supposed to take was a sattelite interceptor.

    Speaking of your design, the only thing that somewhat bothers me - are the machinegun placement. They are off-centerline and that isn`t very good for a spacecraft.
  • BorklessBorkless171 Posts: 0Member
    This ship isn't really built for re-entry. As intended, it would be launched at convenience, and would dock with a hub station. Said station would replenish the Fighter's tanks, as it's launched almost dry to minimize weight. The station also provides a more comfortable home for pilots on alert.

    Periodically, the pilots would rotate home, but the fighters themselves would stay in orbit. (Why keep boosting fighters p if you're going to bring them down again?) The station would also provide a 3m diameter pressurized can. This shirtsleeve environment simplifies basic repair and rearming work. If the fighter is too badly damaged, it would be cannibalized for parts, and deorbited. (Possibly after being used for target practice).

    The MGs are placed where they are so they don't get in the way of the RCS thrusters, and to not intrude on the cockpit pressure vessel (and because I think it looks cooler like this). I admit there may be a little off-axis thrust, but this is a fighter, it's got plenty of maneuvering thrust. Besides, a .50 cal doesn't have that much recoil, especially compared to a 20mm cannon, if the fighter can't deal with that much off-axis thrust, it has bigger problems.

    That said, I'm gonna do a few tests with alternate gun layouts, just to see what it looks like.
  • VALKYRIE013VALKYRIE013547 Posts: 1,473Member
    You can make the guns recoil-less, or put weapons on top and bottom to where if you fire a full salvo, all guns will fire, and not have any off axis movement.

    Interesting concept. and yes I agree with the others on the future of space combat.. large ships may have rail guns, and most combat will probably be at long range with kinetic kill missles ( even a buck shot missile, bunch of bb's at hyper velocity would decimate a craft) so once you get in close enough to use the 50 cal.. ur already dead since you don't have any maneuverability to avoid anti aircraft :)

    looking forward to more fleshing out of this craft! good luck!
  • Mikey-BMikey-B0 Posts: 0Member
    Very neat and similar thinking with what I'm doing with the Mk II Gemini. GMTA. :) Looking forward to where you go with this. You could also counter the MG recoil with thrusters on the aft end of the gun pods. That is what I have planned for Blue Gemini. A control moment gyro would also work and save fuel.
  • psCargilepsCargile417 Posts: 620Member
    The biggest flaw -- and the most common mistake -- is not understanding orbital mechanics. Orbital combat is something I've been trying to wrap my brain around, and like others have said, Atomic Rockets is the best place to brush up on some fundamentals of space combat. Plus Orbiter sim is a must have for anyone wanting to "experience" orbital flight and a great way to learn how spacecraft behave. It's not intuitive, and it is not like air combat, which almost all visual science fiction gets wrong time and time again. Orbital speeds are fast, but the Earth is huge, and rendezvous don't happen quickly. The thing to remember is that the one who runs out of propellant first loses because they have been cornered into an orbit they cannot get out of. The problem is catching an opponent that does not want to get caught. Another thing to consider is that a change in speed is a change in orbit. If the ISS, the Enterprise, A Star Destroyer, an X-Wing, a Viper, and the Wright Flyer were all in the same orbit, they would all be traveling at the same speed. Hitting the throttle will put you in a higher orbit, will hitting the reverses will drop you into a lower orbit. Rendezvousing spacecraft have to oscillate between higher and lower orbits to speed up and slow down to reach their target. That is why it days a couple days for the launched spacecraft to reach the ISS. Now imagine if the ISS was equipped with propellant and powerful engines and could avoid the craft trying to reach it. How long would it take before someone was stuck in their orbit? In terms of combat, it is more closer to submarine warfare than air combat, with opponents tracking and stalking each other, attempting to outmaneuver and force the other to run out of options. This means your .50 cals aren't going to be much use until you can match your opponents position and hope he doesn't have a nasty surprise waiting for you. Missiles? They are good so long as your opponent can't maneuver. And remember, missiles are prone to the same laws as spacecraft and an accelerating missile is putting itself into a higher orbit. Missile strategy is a whole different thing that what is often shown in movies and television. Orbital mechanics must be applied to missiles and have different solutions for hitting targets. If the Space Shuttle had been armed with missiles, it could have blown the ISS out of the sky while on its docking approach while they are relatively close to one another and while the speed of the missile could neglect any orbital change prior to impact or detonation. But again, this is hitting a target that can't maneuver away or strike back. There are other solutions where the missile's orbital change can be used to put it into the path of the target, provided the target can't get out of the way or disable or destroy the missile.

    The more realistic weapons for spacecraft are lasers and microwaves, (and malware); weapons that are line-of-sight, and near instantaneous, where two drawback concerns are power and attenuation.
  • sojournersojourner0 Posts: 0Member
    One of the freaky things about orbital combat is the effect of "speed" is somewhat reversed. For example, if you have 2 ships, A and B, flying next to each other in orbit. The captain of A decides he wants to get ahead of B. He will need to decrease speed. This will cause his ship to fall to a lower orbit which will be a tighter radius circle around the earth, and his ship will pull ahead of ship B.
    Conversely, if ship A wanted to "fall behind" ship B, it would need to increase speed causing it to rise to a higher orbit which takes greater time to traverse and thus ship A would appear to fall behind ship B.
  • BorklessBorkless171 Posts: 0Member
    I'm gonna try out alternate arrangements for the cannons, but this ship is pretty far to the soft side of the sci-fi scale. Think of it as the Saturday-morning-cartoon version of Mikey-B's Blue Gemini. (Thanks for stopping by, by the way, Mikey)

    I have somewhat of a handle on orbital mechanics. (The whole burn retrograde to catch up was counter intuitive at first). Regarding weapons, with weight being at such a premium, most ships are very lightly armored. A few .50 caliber API rounds can scrap most civvie ships. Hardened military targets might take more shooting, or possibly a missile.

    That said, this ship is built more for deep-space combat. For escorting freighters to and from off-world bases. (be they mining outposts, shipyards, etc)

    Part of these oddities are explained away by the 'verse the ship inhabits. Space is very highly traveled, but mostly by private corporations, seeking to profit via off-world mining, colonizing, what have you. (This is not set in our solar system). But, this is mostly a soft-scifi bit of modeling practice. I'm going more for ships that look real-ish, then being absolutely sure to adhere to physics.
  • BorklessBorkless171 Posts: 0Member
    I'm gonna try out alternate arrangements for the cannons, but this ship is pretty far to the soft side of the sci-fi scale. Think of it as the Saturday-morning-cartoon version of Mikey-B's Blue Gemini. (Thanks for stopping by, by the way, Mikey)

    I have somewhat of a handle on orbital mechanics. (The whole burn retrograde to catch up was counter intuitive at first). Regarding weapons, with weight being at such a premium, most ships are very lightly armored. A few .50 caliber API rounds can scrap most civvie ships. Hardened military targets might take more shooting, or possibly a missile.

    That said, this ship is built more for deep-space combat. For escorting freighters to and from off-world bases. (be they mining outposts, shipyards, etc)

    Part of these oddities are explained away by the 'verse the ship inhabits. Space is very highly traveled, but mostly by private corporations, seeking to profit via off-world mining, colonizing, what have you. (This is not set in our solar system). But, this is mostly a soft-scifi bit of modeling practice. I'm going more for ships that look real-ish, then being absolutely sure to adhere to physics.
  • psCargilepsCargile417 Posts: 620Member
    And because each orbit has its own speed and hence duration, it's easy to calculate where another spacecraft, satellite, or station is going to be. If you really want to knock something out of the sky, as the Chinese have proven, a surface launched rocket works well. Plus explosive payloads designed to disperse shrapnel or various types of explosives or warheads could mine an orbit and deny its use. A defensive cloud of debris over a country would do to thwart something like the Boeing X-37, especially if they have no space assets in LEO.
  • BorklessBorkless171 Posts: 0Member
    True, but where's the fun in that?
  • psCargilepsCargile417 Posts: 620Member
    The fun for me is the challenge of doing something technically, economically, and militarily feasible, and learning more in the process.
  • BorklessBorkless171 Posts: 0Member
    I understand that (and have dabbled in doing that myself) But this is more rule-of-cool based. Choosing something prevalent in fiction (a space fighter) and trying to make something that is both practical, and fits the trope as well as possible.

    EDIT: found This defense of Space Fighters on tvtropes (5th post). While it doesn't totally make my ships plausible, it closes the difference.
    I reject the notion that there will not be starfighters in space. We've had some killer AA defenses pop up on Earth and it didn't do in the classic dive bomber or air superiority fighter.

    The same will happen in space. Manned fighters are an inevitability and advantage. Why advantage? Drones lose control when the master unit goes down (and no military in their right mind will build fully autonomous drones), manned fighters have no such limitation. They also have the advantage of judgment calls. What if the target you send fighters against is found to be a civilian craft? A drone may simply fire before its ever realized. A human pilot might figure something's wrong e.g. the target isn't evading or trying to counterattack and double check if they got the target right. Thirdly, it's cheaper from a production level. The control and targeting systems of a space drone would cost multiple times the same cost for human pilots because you have to factor in a million more variables than on Earth.

    Also, I object to the notion that warfare will devolve into light-seconds or AU sized battles and ranges. Long range standoff warfare has existed on Earth for 50 years and yet NOT ONCE has standoff warfare been employed as the standard doctrine. Air to air warfare despite having long range missiles like the AIM-54 Phoenix around for 45 years has rarely engaged another aircraft beyond 20 km. Even that is infrequent compared to 10 km or less. (Which is Sidewinder range.) Land warfare has had missiles and rockets that can fire for hundreds of kilometers but those are rarely if ever employed, especially at maximum ranges.

    All those have one thing in common: Lack of visual/detection. The same happens in space. Unlike what Atomic Rocket would have you believe there is no such thing as an omniscient sensor system or that firing up the engines for a 15 second burn will light you up like a Christmas tree to every sensor system within 3 AU of you. (And that's ignoring the pesky detail of sensors only traveling at the speed of light if we stick to super super hard sci-fi.) You do not "glow" like a sore thumb just being out there. Hell we've missed STARS before on thermal sweeps of the sky. Stars aka some of the hottest known objects in the Universe. If we can miss a star on a thermal sweep, we'll easily miss a ship.

    Weapons wise, I'd expect missiles to be one of the primary armaments but far from the sole armament. The Battle of Latakia in 1973 DESTROYED (in more than one way) the idea of missile-only anything and military planners have been accounting for that since then and will account for it in the future. I'd expect guns would make a huge comeback since they have unlimited range unlike lasers and plasma, do not require fuel like missiles (assuming unguided and non-Rocket Assisted Projectiles), and are cheaper than anything. Hell guns were to date the first and ONLY weapon ever deployed to space, the largest being 23mm twin cannon on the Almaz. Meaning we're more likely to see ships built more like Baltimore class heavy cruisers or Iowa class (pre-1980) battleships than Osa II missile boats or Kirov class battlecruisers.
  • sojournersojourner0 Posts: 0Member
    That comment from tvtropes is terribly flawed in almost every counterpoint it makes to space combat. The author doesn't know what he's talking about and merely exposes his lack of understanding the science behind all of the things he is trying to counterpoint. His worst problem being a misunderstanding of scale. (space is REALLY big)
  • BorklessBorkless171 Posts: 0Member
    Won't deny that. Space is stupidly big. And what I'm designing probably wouldn't work that well in the real world. (I never claimed to be making something practical) Instead, I'm trying to re-imagine as many cliche SF ships (Fighters, Serenity style cargo ships, etc) with real-world tech.

    I think there was a thread somewhere here of a USS Enterprise built with real-world tech. (saucer is a centrifuge, NERVA rockets in the nacelles). Same concept here.
  • sojournersojourner0 Posts: 0Member
    Oh, nothing wrong with your design. It's a fun little piece of art!
  • spacefighterspacefighter2 Posts: 0Member
    i found a good book on manouevering when in orbit.
    it details all this stuff on orbits and on how to chase another spacecraft.
    " to rise from earth by wayne lee"
  • spacefighterspacefighter2 Posts: 0Member
    it is cheaper to put a drone in space as a manned craft requires life support for it's pilot. i would say this gives you four options
    1. a large craft which stays in space for weeks and can support it's pilot(very expensive)
    2. a small craft that is launched with a pilot every time it is needed using a multi stage rocket(also very expensive)
    3. a single stage to orbit fighter such as a smaller version of the shuttle but with weapons and the ability to land and take off like an aeroplane like the reaction engines skylon spaceplane( beyond current technology, expensive to built but cheaper to operate)
    4. a drone which can be sent up into space and wait for when it is needed, this would be a small craft similar to option 2.( cheapest of the choice for the near future).

    i think option 3 would be one of the most awesome machines ever built but for now option 4 is the best method.
  • BorklessBorkless171 Posts: 0Member
    I'm actually building a hybrid of #1 and 2. The ship itself has only air for at most a few days, with rations provided mostly by powerbars and the like the pilot takes with him. But, it would be left in orbit indefinitely, with the pilot spending most of his time on a station or hanger structure.

    Pilots would cycle through in much smaller, cheaper capsules.

    And Drones would still need human in the loop. Machines can't think, and no sane commander will give a computer authority to make a kill decision.
  • spacefighterspacefighter2 Posts: 0Member
    that makes sense. but sometimes you must give a machine the authority to make a kill decision because the machine is so far from the nearest manned base that the signal will take hours/days/years to reach it. then you need to send the control room with it keeping as close as possible to the fighter or let the drone decide. remember some of the g forces that would be exerted on the fighter could be too much for a human to handle.
    the space fighter models i have made so far are very advanced equivalents of option 3, i might try some of the other methods at some stage.
  • alonzo11208alonzo11208171 Posts: 0Member
    As usual, loving your reto-ish stuff Bork! I this working in tandem of the "Space Sub"?
    Borkless wrote: »
    And Drones would still need human in the loop. Machines can't think, and no sane commander will give a computer authority to make a kill decision.

    And this is one of the reasons exactly why in my verse, drones are mostly restricted to planetary operations (if manned fighters aren't available) or something else, like sensor duty, etc. Machine are mostly designed to process assess and relay information. Any other activity, requires some intervention, which leads to unnecessary chains, when you could really just cut the middle man.
  • BorklessBorkless171 Posts: 0Member
    that makes sense. but sometimes you must give a machine the authority to make a kill decision because the machine is so far from the nearest manned base that the signal will take hours/days/years to reach it. then you need to send the control room with it keeping as close as possible to the fighter or let the drone decide. remember some of the g forces that would be exerted on the fighter could be too much for a human to handle.
    the space fighter models i have made so far are very advanced equivalents of option 3, i might try some of the other methods at some stage.

    In the rocketpunk-ish 'verse this ship belongs to, Drones are not very popular. There's a ton of commercial traffic, so the odds of killing non-combats are high if one is not careful. Besides, I like manned spacecraft. Call me romantic.
    As usual, loving your reto-ish stuff Bork! I this working in tandem of the "Space Sub"?
    Not really. I hit a dead-end (read lost interest) on those boats. Since these ships are built up out of parts, I can reuse more stuff, thus giving myself the illusion of working diligently.

    Anyway, UPDATES!

    I finished the Missile racks and Missiles. (There's a total of 12 racks around the central hull, and two missiles have been removed to show the clamps.)
    1Ha0g.jpg

    The radiators have been tweaked slightly, so that when folded, they have enough clearance with the missiles.
    mwvlm.jpg

    I switched the gun-armament to 4 machine guns symmetrical to the x and y axises. No more off-center thrust when firing. (plus, ya know, more dakka.) I also added hand holds for EVAs, as well as wrangling the fighter into its can. (there are also ammo doors for replacing MG belts, but you can't see them here.)
    f6dzO.jpg

    Another render of the hand-rails. The rectangular hatches above the guns are doors to access ammo belt stowage. This does mean you need to go EVA to reload, but any way to reload from within the cramped cockpit just wouldn't work.
    J6Qfp.jpg

    Finally, a beauty shot (fugly shot?) of this beast to update the tumbnail.
    tWiV4.jpg

    EDIT: fixed the final image.
  • psCargilepsCargile417 Posts: 620Member
    Just to refute tvtropes.
    The same will happen in space. Manned fighters are an inevitability and advantage. Why advantage? Drones lose control when the master unit goes down (and no military in their right mind will build fully autonomous drones), manned fighters have no such limitation. They also have the advantage of judgment calls. What if the target you send fighters against is found to be a civilian craft? A drone may simply fire before its ever realized. A human pilot might figure something's wrong e.g. the target isn't evading or trying to counterattack and double check if they got the target right. Thirdly, it's cheaper from a production level. The control and targeting systems of a space drone would cost multiple times the same cost for human pilots because you have to factor in a million more variables than on Earth.

    It's more likely that machine/computer intelligence when it arrives at human equivalent intelligence will be the same as natural intelligence, with all that implies. Read Douglas Hofstadter. Not Issac Asimov. Intelligence and emotions are not programmed states, but arising results of complex information processing systems, be they brains or computers. If your AI has programmed emotional responses, it likely has no true self-awareness. At least, this is my take on it. For less intelligent autonomous drones, the military is smart enough to put in place safeguards, like not using a Windows OS. No matter your feelings on it, autonomous drones are in the future. Military robots are being R&Ded.

    Imagine a Predator loaded with face recognition software . . . kill these people.

    Human pilots also make mistakes. Recall every incident of friendly fire.
    . . . Unlike what Atomic Rocket would have you believe there is no such thing as an omniscient sensor system or that firing up the engines for a 15 second burn will light you up like a Christmas tree to every sensor system within 3 AU of you. (And that's ignoring the pesky detail of sensors only traveling at the speed of light if we stick to super super hard sci-fi.) You do not "glow" like a sore thumb just being out there. Hell we've missed STARS before on thermal sweeps of the sky. Stars aka some of the hottest known objects in the Universe. If we can miss a star on a thermal sweep, we'll easily miss a ship.

    What Atomic Rockets is saying is that hot objects are really really really really really really easy to spot. Really. Something on the spacecraft is going to be hot. Against a 2 degree Kelvin background, yes, you stand out not only like a sore thumb, but like a sore thumb dipped in phosphorous, soaked in gasoline, and lit on fire. Your ships is a freaking infrared beacon, especially with those radiators pouring heat away from sensitive humans and electronics. Atomic Rockets is stressing that there is no stealth in space, not that you have some super FTL sensor system.
    Weapons wise, I'd expect missiles to be one of the primary armaments but far from the sole armament. The Battle of Latakia in 1973 DESTROYED (in more than one way) the idea of missile-only anything and military planners have been accounting for that since then and will account for it in the future. I'd expect guns would make a huge comeback since they have unlimited range unlike lasers and plasma, do not require fuel like missiles (assuming unguided and non-Rocket Assisted Projectiles), and are cheaper than anything. Hell guns were to date the first and ONLY weapon ever deployed to space, the largest being 23mm twin cannon on the Almaz. Meaning we're more likely to see ships built more like Baltimore class heavy cruisers or Iowa class (pre-1980) battleships than Osa II missile boats or Kirov class battlecruisers.

    This guy doesn't understand the orbital environment. Orbital combat is to air combat what air combat is to surface combat. So long as gravity has an effect on your ship, all of your flight motion will follow a curve because your motion is a vector along at least two axis: gravity and thrust. It will be assumed that a bullet or other type of projectile will be traveling considerably faster than the firing craft, so that means the bullet will automatically assume a transfer orbit to a higher orbit and be only useful as a weapon if the target intersects that transfer orbit at the calculated moment of impact and cannot evade the firing craft--recalling that the firing craft cannot hide its heat signature to sneak up on the target. Missiles have the same problem. Both may have unlimited range but they can be easily defeated and evaded. Projectiles have a better chance of hitting their target at close ranges and when the projectiles are accelerated into a hyperbolic orbit, such as those used for escape velocity.

    Let's see what the referenced material on the Soviet Almaz wikipedia entry has to say. James Oberg writes in Space Power Theory:
    By late 1998, enough hearsay evidence had been gathered to
    convince some space historians that the Soviets installed a defensive
    cannon on one of their early space stations, the Salyut-3 military
    reconnaissance vehicle, launched in 1974.12 According to published
    accounts, reportedly confirmed by the spacecraft commander, Pavel
    Popovich, the station carried a modified Soviet jet interceptor cannon.
    It was a Nudelman-Rikhter A“VulkanA” gun, similar to models installed
    on the Mig-19, Mig-21, and the Sukhoi-7.

    The Soviet weapon was installed to defend against manned or
    unmanned American interceptor spacecraft approaching Salyut 3. The
    gun was fixed along the station's long axis and aimed by turning the
    station, guided by a sighting screen at the station control post. At
    ranges of less than a kilometer it could have been highly effective, as
    long as it was not fired crosswise to the stationA’s orbital motion, in
    which case orbital mechanics would have brought the bullets back to
    the station within one orbit!

    Specifications for the 30 mm version of this cannon are a length of
    about 2 meters, weight of 66.5 kg, 900 rounds per minute rate of fire,
    developing a muzzle velocity of 780 m/sec for a projectile mass of 410
    grams. There is also a 23 mm version weighing about 40 kg. It is not
    clear which of the two was on the Salyut 3 space station, but in the late
    1960s the Soviets did design (but never built) an A“attack SoyuzA”
    manned spacecraft carrying the 23 mm gun. Several sources confirm
    that after the last crew left the Salyut-3 station, the cannon was test
    fired to depletion via remote control.

    The second paragraph is key. I said this in a different way yesterday. Less than a kilometer is practically point blank range on orbit. There are sniper rifles with longer confirmed kills. Notice too how the cannons could not be fired crosswise to the spacecraft's direction of flight without risk of shooting itself--orbital mechanics at work.

    Russianspaceweb also has this to say about the cannons:
    Years later it was revealed that shortly before deorbiting OPS-2, ground controllers commanded the "self-defence" gun onboard the station to fire. According to Igor Afanasiev, an expert on the history of space technology, firings were conducted in the direction opposite to the station's velocity vector, in order to shorten the "orbital life" of the cannon's shells. A total of three firings had were conducted during the flight of the OPS-2.

    In other words, orbital mechanics was used to ensure the bullets would deorbit and be destroyed.

    They also state:
    The station was also equipped with a "self-defense" gun developed at a design bureau led by Nudelman. The weapon was installed in the front section of the station and in order to point it at the target crew had to change the attitude of the entire station. During ground test firing, the gun was able to split in half a metal container. At the same time, the firing caused considerable shaking of the station itself, therefore in-orbit tests of the weapon during manned operations were ruled out.

    In its current design, it wouldn't have been a pleasant thing to use.

    The author of the tvtropes comment makes the assumption that because the Russians did it, then that will be the weapon of choice for future orbital combat craft. However, these missions were conducted in the 70's, prior to small lasers (something that could fit on the Salyut, like a 2m gun) having anywhere near the power to cause critical failures of target spacecraft. Aircraft cannon were the only option available. Had the Soviets had a small turreted high powered laser, they would have fielded it.

    What I infer from this information is that the Almaz was more space station (as the Russians call it) than spacecraft in that it did not have enough propellent to make a number of orbital changes (for combat maneuvering), and its cannon was defensive only, waiting until the enemy spacecraft got sufficiently close--docking maneuvers close--before it had a firing solution for guaranteed damage/destruction--but only in certain attitudes in reference to orbital motion so as to not endanger itself! This is the first time I have ever heard and further researched the Almaz/Salyut missions and I find it validates my own thoughts regarding orbital combat and the pros and cons of available weapons systems.

    Things to remember are that projectiles have a smaller window of usability than lasers, which would have a longer range (even 2km is better than 1) and not be impeded by orbital mechanics, however a laser requires a higher power source than a kinetic gun. There is a place with guns, but the guy with the directed energy weapon wins.
  • BorklessBorkless171 Posts: 0Member
    That's a lot of very cool information. I kinda understood about half of what you said there. But you mention cannons being of poor use in orbit. That may be true, but this fighter won't be orbiting for most of it's travel time. (Well, it will, but most of the time will be eccentric transfer orbits from one planet or moon to another) If my (somewhat shaky) grasp on orbital mechanics is correct, the whole "your own bullets hitting yourself" problem would be minimal.

    In a totally realistic world, I agree my design would not be the most practical. I'll leave the uber-realistic stuff to you and Mikey-B, this is more making something cool for my own enjoyment.

    I never claimed this to be utterly realistic. Think more neo-BSG (sans FTL and artificial Gravity) or Firefly than Apollo 13. While I do appreciate and value you input as to what is strictly feasible or not, I'm more willing to brush it to the corner in pursuit of something that feel cooler.
  • Mikey-BMikey-B0 Posts: 0Member
    It has a kind of Jovian Chronicles feel to it. I like the EVA handles all over the place too.
  • StonecoldStonecold331 Posts: 0Member
    Looking good so far. BTW, bullets aren`t so impractical. Any stray bullets and debris left, will sooner or later fall into the atmosphere and burn. So, no "permanent orbit closure" will happen. Also, if you don`t have powerfull enough reactor to use lasers or railguns - chemical projectile weapons are a logical choice, proven by time.

    Also, are your missiles supposed to be re-entry capable? If not, then they don`t need cyllindrical outer shell. Basicly, I think they will be engines+propellant tank+warhead, strapped together to some simple frame.
  • SchimpfySchimpfy396 Posts: 1,632Member
    I'd suggest looking at the MAU-12 bomb rack or LAU-128 missile launcher for good references in weapon carriage. This is pretty cool design you've got going here. :thumb:
  • BorklessBorkless171 Posts: 0Member
    Stonecold wrote: »
    Also, are your missiles supposed to be re-entry capable? If not, then they don`t need cyllindrical outer shell. Basicly, I think they will be engines+propellant tank+warhead, strapped together to some simple frame.

    The missiles aren't supposed to be used intra-atmo. (they can, but they shouldn't.) The cylidrical shell is just there to keep the poly-count down.
    Juvat wrote: »
    I'd suggest looking at the MAU-12 bomb rack or LAU-128 missile launcher for good references in weapon carriage. This is pretty cool design you've got going here. :thumb:

    Cool. I wasn't really satisfied with the ordnance clamps as they are now. Thanks for the refs!
Sign In or Register to comment.