Skip to main content
replaced http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/ with https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/
Source Link

As an attempt to figure things out you might read the answerthe answer, the OP in the question was more extensive in describing the available technologies, but it still not enough to answer the question.(TL;DR; missiles rocks)

As an attempt to figure things out you might read the answer, the OP in the question was more extensive in describing the available technologies, but it still not enough to answer the question.(TL;DR; missiles rocks)

As an attempt to figure things out you might read the answer, the OP in the question was more extensive in describing the available technologies, but it still not enough to answer the question.(TL;DR; missiles rocks)

fix grammar
Source Link
MolbOrg
  • 6.5k
  • 1
  • 20
  • 61

It starts from ISP of engines they use(or properties of FTL if there is one) to how efficiency of weapons scalesweapon can be scaled (bang for energy buck and energy/resource buck to build the thing)
As an example Death Star was a crappy ship technology wise, build wise, but it had a good main weapon with good bang for energy buck.

It starts from ISP of engines they use(or properties of FTL if there is one) to how efficiency of weapons scales (bang for energy buck and energy/resource buck to build the thing)
As an example Death Star was a crappy ship technology wise, build wise, but it had a good main weapon with good bang for energy buck.

It starts from ISP of engines they use(or properties of FTL if there is one) to how efficiency weapon can be scaled (bang for energy buck and energy/resource buck to build the thing)
As an example Death Star was a crappy ship technology wise, build wise, but it had a good main weapon with good bang for energy buck.

fix sentence
Source Link
MolbOrg
  • 6.5k
  • 1
  • 20
  • 61

It starts from ISP of engines they use(or properties of FTL if there is one) to how efficiency of weapons scales (bang for energy buck and energy/resource buck to build the thing; but IRL carrier solves another task of offering different capabilities - that is the part of the task for a fleet problemthing)
As an example Death Star was a crappy ship technology wise, build wise, but it had a good main weapon with good bang for energy buck.

As an example, a carrier in the real world have the displacement of about 100'000 tons but can be destroyed with a single rocket which weight of about 3 tons. If the probability of destruction is 1%, then you better have 1000 of such rockets, it will be just 3% by mass, and the probability of survival for the bigger ship will be about 0.004%. (in real live there will be a problem to launch that many rockets, but in space, you can have them floating, and starting on commandcommand; but IRL carrier solves another task of offering different capabilities - that is the part of the task for a fleet problem)
But if the efficiency of the bigger ship to be destroyed is not 3% by mass, and you need the same amount(by mass) of rockets, then it might depend on efforts needed to produce those rockets compared to efforts to produce the big ship.

It starts from ISP of engines they use(or properties of FTL if there is one) to how efficiency of weapons scales (bang for energy buck and energy/resource buck to build the thing; but IRL carrier solves another task of offering different capabilities - that is the part of the task for a fleet problem)
As an example Death Star was a crappy ship technology wise, build wise, but it had a good main weapon with good bang for energy buck.

As an example, a carrier in the real world have the displacement of about 100'000 tons but can be destroyed with a single rocket which weight of about 3 tons. If the probability of destruction is 1%, then you better have 1000 of such rockets, it will be just 3% by mass, and the probability of survival for the bigger ship will be about 0.004%. (in real live there will be a problem to launch that many rockets, but in space, you can have them floating, and starting on command)
But if the efficiency of the bigger ship to be destroyed is not 3% by mass, and you need the same amount(by mass) of rockets, then it might depend on efforts needed to produce those rockets compared to efforts to produce the big ship.

It starts from ISP of engines they use(or properties of FTL if there is one) to how efficiency of weapons scales (bang for energy buck and energy/resource buck to build the thing)
As an example Death Star was a crappy ship technology wise, build wise, but it had a good main weapon with good bang for energy buck.

As an example, a carrier in the real world have the displacement of about 100'000 tons but can be destroyed with a single rocket which weight of about 3 tons. If the probability of destruction is 1%, then you better have 1000 of such rockets, it will be just 3% by mass, and the probability of survival for the bigger ship will be about 0.004%. (in real live there will be a problem to launch that many rockets, but in space, you can have them floating, and starting on command; but IRL carrier solves another task of offering different capabilities - that is the part of the task for a fleet problem)
But if the efficiency of the bigger ship to be destroyed is not 3% by mass, and you need the same amount(by mass) of rockets, then it might depend on efforts needed to produce those rockets compared to efforts to produce the big ship.

fix grammar, spelling
Source Link
MolbOrg
  • 6.5k
  • 1
  • 20
  • 61
Loading
Source Link
MolbOrg
  • 6.5k
  • 1
  • 20
  • 61
Loading