Stars, planets and other Sci-Fi peeves

Well, if a civilization actually has space wars, I would assume that they would invest a lot of research and money into detecting enemies. They'd have whole arrays of telescopes with spectrometres, to notice anything whose spectrum (A) doesn't fit reflecting light from the sun, and (B) shows a strong Doppler effect to known lines. In fact, they'd have them all the way out of the solar system.

That said, I have no problem with the idea that there would be practical limits to reliable detection range. After all, we have such limits in warfare nowadays. It stands to reason that there'll always be SOME limit.

All I really have a chip on the shoulder with is outright stealth in space.
 
Last edited:
Another thought about detection, though: unless you're doing a high-c bombing run to ram the planet, at some point you'll want to start braking. I.e., turn around and fire your thrusters towards the enemy.

And THAT is going to be very detectable even with today's technology.
 
Assuming that, in some far flung future, remaining undetected becomes an issue, is there any way to have a sort of reverse heat sink? A big chunk of ice (or something with better themal properties) that you keep frozen (somehow...?) and then pump all your excess heat into for 'silent running'?
 
a hostile space-faring force could accelerate a comet from beyond the solar system on a collision with the enemy's planet so that by the time it is detected it would be too late to do anything to deflect it.
 
3point14 said:
Assuming that, in some far flung future, remaining undetected becomes an issue, is there any way to have a sort of reverse heat sink? A big chunk of ice (or something with better themal properties) that you keep frozen (somehow...?) and then pump all your excess heat into for 'silent running'?
Click to expand...

Well, the technology already exists. Military planes can dump heat into their fuel tank. Won't really make you invisible in IR, but it might make you less bright than the flare you just dropped, when you need to lose a missile.

The problem is that no matter how you twist it for a space scenario, it only buys you so much time, really.

And obviously you need to have your thrusters off.

And you need to be moving slowly. If you can meaningfully write your speed as a fraction of c, just all the hydrogen and helium you impact will make your front plate glow like Rudolph's nose :p
 
The Great Zaganza said:
a hostile space-faring force could accelerate a comet from beyond the solar system on a collision with the enemy's planet so that by the time it is detected it would be too late to do anything to deflect it.
Click to expand...

If you have the thrusters that can do that, you don't need the comet. For the same amount of fuel, you can put the same kinetic energy into the rocket itself. That's what I meant by doing a high-c bombing. If you can achieve the kind of speeds to make an interstellar war worth fighting, the vehicle itself is a weapon. Just point it at the enemy planet and accelerate all the way.
 
My pet peeve: when a SF setting with a few silly elements makes it big and later invents technobabbley explanations for why the silly things aren't silly and actually were never meant to be silly, it's super serious because the lore is just that deep.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
My pet peeve: when a SF setting with a few silly elements makes it big and later invents technobabbley explanations for why the silly things aren't silly and actually were never meant to be silly, it's super serious because the lore is just that deep.
Click to expand...

Related pet peeve, elaborate post hoc rationalizations for choices made in the 60s to save on the FX budget.
 
3point14 said:
Similarly "Cruiser" could be derived from originally being cruise ships retrofitted for battle.
Click to expand...

In the case of the Mon Calamari Cruisers this was literally the case. The Mon Cal ships the rebels used were actually re-purposed Cruise Ships.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
My pet peeve: when a SF setting with a few silly elements makes it big and later invents technobabbley explanations for why the silly things aren't silly and actually were never meant to be silly, it's super serious because the lore is just that deep.
Click to expand...

PhantomWolf said:
In the case of the Mon Calamari Cruisers this was literally the case. The Mon Cal ships the rebels used were actually re-purposed Cruise Ships.
Click to expand...

:boxedin:
 
Beelzebuddy said:
My pet peeve: when a SF setting with a few silly elements makes it big and later invents technobabbley explanations for why the silly things aren't silly and actually were never meant to be silly, it's super serious because the lore is just that deep.
Click to expand...
Heh. I read in one of the now-noncanon Star Wars Expanded Universe novels the rationalisation for why doing the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs was not really a dumb error brought about by not understanding what a parsec was. It wasn't too dissimilar to the canon Force Awakens explanation, but it had to do with piloting a course through a region rich with black holes. Doing it in as short a route as possible not only required great skill on the part of the pilot, but it required tremendous speed and resilience on the part of the ship. So Han was bragging not only about his ship, but about his skills too. It was actually a pretty neat post-hoc rationalisation.
 
arthwollipot said:
Heh. I read in one of the now-noncanon Star Wars Expanded Universe novels the rationalisation for why doing the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs was not really a dumb error brought about by not understanding what a parsec was. It wasn't too dissimilar to the canon Force Awakens explanation, but it had to do with piloting a course through a region rich with black holes. Doing it in as short a route as possible not only required great skill on the part of the pilot, but it required tremendous speed and resilience on the part of the ship. So Han was bragging not only about his ship, but about his skills too. It was actually a pretty neat post-hoc rationalisation.
Click to expand...

Correct. I've read that novel as well.
Unfortunately 12 parsecs is a distance of about 39 lightyears.

That means going faster than lightspeed. Unfortunately, in the EU novel, this was not the case. Han was flying hands on stick. (unless I remember completely wrong).

So. Neat as the explanation is, it's still nonsense.
 
Stars Wars EU has also explained why you can hear spaceships flying passed with an "Aural Amplifier" worn by pilots to help orient themselves.

Trying to make sense of most Sci-fi is like Religion: a lot of effort for very little result.
 
Roboramma said:
:boxedin:
Click to expand...

I don't think it was a retroactive fandom attempt to explain the naming, it comes from the Visual Guide and other official sources also say that the Mon Cals produced civilian ships prior to them entered the Civil War on the side of the Rebels. It really was that it was a suggestion that cruisers could have come from cruise ship, so I was pointing out that Mon Cal Cruisers actually by official sources were retrofitted cruise ships. I doubt that they were called cruisers because of that though, I just thought it was an interesting coincidence.
 
PhantomWolf said:
I don't think it was a retroactive fandom attempt to explain the naming, it comes from the Visual Guide and other official sources also say that the Mon Cals produced civilian ships prior to them entered the Civil War on the side of the Rebels. It really was that it was a suggestion that cruisers could have come from cruise ship, so I was pointing out that Mon Cal Cruisers actually by official sources were retrofitted cruise ships. I doubt that they were called cruisers because of that though, I just thought it was an interesting coincidence.
Click to expand...

I prefer the term "astroquarium".
 
Retrofitted civilian ships HAVE been called cruisers in the real world. They get called stuff like auxiliary cruisers or the Royal Navy called them armed merchant cruisers. That's not the problem.

The problems are:

1. They're only useful for attacking other unarmoured ships, like submarines or other merchant vessels. If you try to stand up to an actual warship, that's going to be like a circus dwarf funeral procession: short and sad. See for example the sinking of the Atlantis for how even a destroyer can make VERY short work of one.

You try to stand up to a mis-named battleship, which is what a super star destroyer is... yeah, that's not going to end well :p

2. IRL they're still named "cruisers" because they're the kind of ship you can use to, you know, cruise. The hint is in the name. And the important part, for that to have any meaning, is: as opposed to other ships which are used for different, less cruisy roles.

3. What would even be the role of one? IRL they were used either as bait for submarines (Royal Navy) or to prey on unarmed enemy merchant ships (Kriegsmarine.) Neither works very well in SW, unless the rebels are actually doing piracy.
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
Retrofitted civilian ships HAVE been called cruisers in the real world. They get called stuff like auxiliary cruisers or the Royal Navy called them armed merchant cruisers. That's not the problem.

The problems are:

1. They're only useful for attacking other unarmoured ships, like submarines or other merchant vessels. If you try to stand up to an actual warship, that's going to be like a circus dwarf funeral procession: short and sad. See for example the sinking of the Atlantis for how even a destroyer can make VERY short work of one.

You try to stand up to a mis-named battleship, which is what a super star destroyer is... yeah, that's not going to end well :p

2. IRL they're still named "cruisers" because they're the kind of ship you can use to, you know, cruise. The hint is in the name. And the important part, for that to have any meaning, is: as opposed to other ships which are used for different, less cruisy roles.

3. What would even be the role of one? IRL they were used either as bait for submarines (Royal Navy) or to prey on unarmed enemy merchant ships (Kriegsmarine.) Neither works very well in SW, unless the rebels are actually doing piracy.
Click to expand...

I think in the SW Universe it would be easier to end up with a ship that is more powerful that in the case of WW2 versions. It's easier to install more powerfull shields and weapons than to rebuild and armour a hull.

According to Wookiepedia, the MC-80A Home One and its sister ship the Independence were initially build as a space exploration ships rather than the passenger ships that the MC-80 Liberty types were.

They were a threat to Star Destroyers because they had better and more advanced shielding systems so they could take a lot more damage before hull armour become an issue.

Another interesting point is that Star Cruiser and Capital Ship are used interchangeably for these ships, and technically they don't fit into the "cruiser" category for SW ships as they are far too big.
 
Last edited:
SW starships are really stupid - they have a total mismatch of power, unless the story demands otherwise, then the balance is reversed.

Spoiler: best Star Wars ship is the Arrowhead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom