|
everydayfalls posted:Some conclusions! Well done nerd sir, well done.
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 00:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 11:17 |
|
|
Normally I  hard at people doing videos about fictional battles because it feels like it's almost always "here's how I would have fought the battle of Helm's Deep", but that really was genuinely good. Really concise explanations as to why it's not just a sequence of ships lobbing missiles at each other and breaking down the narrative beats of the fight.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 00:10
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Spacedock actually works with people from the show to produce their expanse videos so its probably the best place to go. It think its more than that, because even lovely belter ships can do that. The difference ia they probably don't have to completely power down their core, simply kill their drive plume. They already have a hard enough timw tracking ships that cut power and use thrusters to alter course.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 00:40
|
|
|
Toxic Fart Syndrome posted:This vastly underestimates the amount of sky that exists and the inverse square rule. Look, if you make a show that is going to engage with real actual physics as much as this one does you are going to open yourself to the kinds of nitpicks we are discussing. The important points that you seem to be forgetting about the slingshot racers is that their ships are very small and still use chemical rockets to get where the are going. They would be the figurative candle in front of a lighthouse in this setting. To move even the smallest asteroids around in a time frame not measured in decades you need a fancy Epstein drive and those are bright and easily seen when they are on. This is how they work as well as they do. More importantly the show itself has made this point as the stealth ships in the beginning only show up when they start braking to intercept the donager. IE when they turn their engines on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 00:56
|
|
|
Toxic Fart Syndrome posted:This vastly underestimates the amount of sky that exists and the inverse square rule It really doesn't. Almost 10 years ago we were capable of detecting by their infrared emissions starts dozens light years away that have a surface temperature of roughly 0 degrees C. Anything capable of moving a ship around in the solar system with any kind of alacrity is going to be as visible as a flare in a darkened basement. In the world of the Expanse literally everybody is going to be looking around in all directions for IR signatures at all times, because they're so important. This is precisely why the stealth ships were a necessary device in the first place; if it were so easy to remain hidden, stealth tech wouldn't be such a big deal. And the stealth ships are only stealthy so long as they don't light up their engines. Toxic Fart Syndrome posted:Even more helpful would have been a sequence where some ship (maybe the Roci) used a no-thrust trajectory and large-body occlusion to hide from enemy ships. Missed opportunity, if you ask me. Probably not best to cite an example that the showrunner literally apologized for: quote:The gravity-assist trajectory Alex (i.e., we) had devised would’ve in reality taken months to complete, but the sequence we’d created showed Alex slingshotting around several moons and getting back to Ganymede in a ludicrously short period of time.* (In a moment of derangement, I briefly considered fixing the problem by using VFX to make Alex’s beard appear longer each time we cut back to him, with empty beer cans and food bar wrappers accumulating around him to imply that a lot of time was passing in each cut. I’m only half kidding.) Phanatic fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Feb 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 00:59
|
|
|
The battle was well thought-out but I feel they could have had maybe just a couple more establishing or interior shots between flipping back and forth between the ships to make it clearer what was happening, especially when the Rocinante and Serrio Mal look so similar from the back.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 01:38
|
|
|
The writers and editors could have done a better job of making the viewer understand who was in charge of what within Drummer's little squadron - most importantly that Oskana was in command of the Dewalt after Drummer took over Ashford's ship. It's pretty crucial to understanding who is firing at what and why during the big fight with the Roci, but everyone here was slightly confused while watching it. Everything else about that battle was pretty great.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 02:35
|
|
|
I could have used more super nerd setup too. "We're coming in on the float at 20 kps delta V, almost head to head. Assuming the Belters keep their max burn at 6 g and us 10 g, that gives us an a min/max PDC engagement time of 10 to 30 seconds before we pass through their formation. If they hold their burn, Torpedo engagement envelope is going to occur in 2 hours, 5 minutes. They've spread to a screen formation, spacing 50 clicks. Torpedo blasts won't be able to blind more than one, but their PDC's are too far apart to help each other. I'll get the railgun popping as soon as we're within 30 clicks." And then super tense 2 hours before the intense as hell 1 minute engagement time. Keeping constant checks to see if the enemy adjusts their formation or alters their burn as the ships close in. Also it would be cute to take a long-range pot shot or two with the railgun, just to keep'em honest. One thing that bothered me about the battle was they setup the Belters as taking a spread formation, but the Rocci took out the destroyer first, then flew by it and engaged the heavy frigate. If the ships were set up spaced out on a circle, blowing past one of them should have taken the Rocci through the formation. Also I always thought Destroyers were a heavier ship class than Frigates. But I guess a heavy frigate is bigger than a destroyer? eh, whatever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 03:24
|
|
|
gfarrell80 posted:Also I always thought Destroyers were a heavier ship class than Frigates. But I guess a heavy frigate is bigger than a destroyer? eh, whatever. There is no fixed definition for what a Destroyer or Frigate is, it's up to whatever navy is operating the ship. For a real-world example, the modern British navy might have two ships that are the same size and weight, but one would be called a Destroyer because its fast enough to operate with the fleet, and the other a Frigate because it's a few knots slower.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 03:32
|
|
|
They should have launched Vipers BSG didn't have many big battles but they were a lot easier to follow since they were just a bunch of boats in space Mu Zeta fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Feb 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 05:22
|
|
|
“Destroyer” is less about size and more about having a disproportionately large armament for their displacement (“destroyer” was initially shortform for battleship destroyer) but generally, destroyers are on the smaller side of naval ships, characterized as being smaller ships that can move fast and punch well alive their weight class. The idea of “destroyer” being a large, bulky battleship, especially in science fiction, is more or less entirely the result of the Star Destroyer from Star Wars.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 05:35
|
|
|
Babysitter Super Sleuth posted:“Destroyer” is less about size and more about having a disproportionately large armament for their displacement (“destroyer” was initially shortform for battleship destroyer) but generally, destroyers are on the smaller side of naval ships, characterized as being smaller ships that can move fast and punch well alive their weight class. This is not correct. The origin of the destroyer is a ship fast enough to screen the battlefleet and heavily armed enough to destroy Torpedo Boats. They were originally called Torpedo Boat Destroyer before it was shortened to Destroyer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 06:09
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:It really doesn't. Almost 10 years ago we were capable of detecting by their infrared emissions starts dozens light years away that have a surface temperature of roughly 0 degrees C. Anything capable of moving a ship around in the solar system with any kind of alacrity is going to be as visible as a flare in a darkened basement. In the world of the Expanse literally everybody is going to be looking around in all directions for IR signatures at all times, because they're so important. This is precisely why the stealth ships were a necessary device in the first place; if it were so easy to remain hidden, stealth tech wouldn't be such a big deal. And the stealth ships are only stealthy so long as they don't light up their engines. This is very strange logic. Our ability now to detect stars dozens of light years away which are pretty cool (by star standards) does not in any way prove that we have detected all such stars within that radius. And that’s also ignoring that stars typically radiate heat over a period of millions or even billions of years, where an Epstein drive might only burn in half-second increments. But the show is easy to poke holes into. They had to repurpose the stealth detection system to pick up the asteroids, because that system was pointing toward Mars to pick up stealthed planetbuster missiles. But the Martians fly ships all over the solar system, so surely they could just toss planetbusters out airlocks and have them sitting ready to activate and target Earth at any time, meaning that a stealth detection system couldn’t work if it only watched Mars. You’d have to watch all around Earth. But of course, that system would have detected the rocks and this season couldn’t have happened.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 06:35
|
|
|
The standard order is Corvette-Destroyer-Frigate-Crusier-Battlecrusier-Battleship-Dreadnought It's not hard and fast, especially with modern ships. Like the Beagle, the ship that Darwin was on was a Frigate and it was considered a cramped, misrable ship to be on, while the Canadian Navy operates mostly Frigates, the Halifax Class that is pretty roomy and comfortable to serve on according to my friends in the RCN.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 07:48
|
|
|
Spacedock also did a video about sci-fi ship classes to clear up any confusion: https://youtu.be/jHbxdbiMopg
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 09:35
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:The standard order is Corvette-Destroyer-Frigate-Crusier-Battlecrusier-Battleship-Dreadnought Not quite, Corvette - Frigate - Destroyer - Cruiser - Battlecruiser - Battleship. Sailing frigates being miserable cramped pieces of ship is because they're old sailing ships. When a modern navy wants to build a ship, the distinction between frigate and destroyer is not always clear (small navies may label their main ships frigates so it looks cheaper to politicians), but navies with multiple types of surface combatants introduced around the same time will call the larger ones destroyers. Cruisers are on their way out and basically get folded into the destroyer designation since (not counting abortive experiments in nuclear cruisers) nobody has really built a bigger cruiser to stay ahead of current destroyers which can already do most things historically done by cruisers. Battlecruisers are obsolete because nobody builds big gun ships, ditto for battleships, dreadnought is just a demarcation between antiquated pre ww1 pieces of trash and ww1 or later battleships with a uniform main armament.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 10:44
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
twistedmentat posted:The standard order is Corvette-Destroyer-Frigate-Crusier-Battlecrusier-Battleship-Dreadnought It's a role thing. In modern parlance Frigates are a defensive orientated ship whereas Destroyers are an offensive orientated ship. So a Frigate can be just larger than a corvette but loaded up with anti-submarine weaponry, or just larger than a destroyer and carrying a shitload of anti-air missiles. In both instances the Frigate exists to protect other ships in the fleet from non-surface threats. I have no idea what that means for the expanse but I'd expect if they were sticking with that rationale for destroyers to be all-rounder combat vessels whereas Frigates have fewer torpedoes and are more loaded up with sensors, ecm and PDW.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 10:44
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:It's a role thing. In modern parlance Frigates are a defensive orientated ship whereas Destroyers are an offensive orientated ship. So a Frigate can be just larger than a corvette but loaded up with anti-submarine weaponry, or just larger than a destroyer and carrying a shitload of anti-air missiles. In both instances the Frigate exists to protect other ships in the fleet from non-surface threats. If you look at the royal navy the type 45 destroyer is a floating anti aircraft missile rack with a few token anti surface weapons bolted on (omitted from some of the class) and no anti sub capability unless you stick an anti sub helicopter on the back.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 10:56
|
|
|
Babysitter Super Sleuth posted:The idea of “destroyer” being a large, bulky battleship, especially in science fiction, is more or less entirely the result of the Star Destroyer from Star Wars.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 11:38
|
|
|
Maybe they just burned the drives on the rocks during the day? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 14:34
|
|
|
gohmak posted:Speaking of which, when is Apple dropping the premier date for Foundation? No specific date, but reports today are saying that a ten-episode first season premieres this Fall. Not sure whether that's old news or not, but it's suddenly in my news feeds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 14:49
|
|
|
I love the naval chat. One of my favorite EVE online ships was the Hurricane, a battlecruiser. It's a cheese wedge made of rust and cannons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 16:13
|
|
|
Narsham posted:This is very strange logic. Our ability now to detect stars dozens of light years away which are pretty cool (by star standards) does not in any way prove that we have detected all such stars within that radius. It's an indication of how incredibly sensitive 20-year-old infrared sensors are. Anything *in our own solar system* that is under thrust is going to be glaringly obvious. If right now, today, the military felt it was really important to be able to detect any space ships in the solar system, it could do it. In some future time period where there are hundreds of ships whizzing around at any given moment and there are three different factions with the capability of, say, throwing meteors at each other, everyone would be doing it. And again, if it were so easy to hide things in space, the plot device of the stealth ships would be totally unnecessary. This is what you could do with OTS technology from 20 years ago: https://groups.google.com/g/rec.arts.sf.science/c/-E6r2F8rgnQ/m/Ueui6xzQ9FQJ quote:Existing astronomical telescopes are not real good at fast scanning, so (That's a post from a literal subject matter expert. Guy's background is satellite design, including USAF satellites, which means reconnaissance satellites.) quote:But the show is easy to poke holes into. They had to repurpose the stealth detection system to pick up the asteroids, because that system was pointing toward Mars to pick up stealthed planetbuster missiles. But the Martians fly ships all over the solar system, so surely they could just toss planetbusters out airlocks and have them sitting ready to activate and target Earth at any time, meaning that a stealth detection system couldn’t work if it only watched Mars. You’d have to watch all around Earth. But of course, that system would have detected the rocks and this season couldn’t have happened. Also yes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 16:43
|
|
|
Yeah it's extremely hard today, but if you threw enough money and resources at tracking every object above a certain size in the solar system you could technically do it. Fast forward three hundred years and given a massive incentive to do so and you'd have a bunch of arrays that would sweep the solar system regularly, with AI systems flagging anything that's disappeared or appears where it shouldn't be. e: but it's a science fiction conceit for dramatic purposes, I'm not worked up about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 16:58
|
|
|
Right now there is a telescope coming online that can scan the entire night sky in its area within a few days. Give it a couple hundred years and I guarantee that there are telescopes in space that can scan the whole system within a manageable time frame and with telescopes in different parts of an orbit, they can probably get exact locations with stereo images.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 18:03
|
|
|
Modern ship classes just don't have the kind of distinctions that the WW1/2 era did. The US and Russia are the only navies that even have anything bigger than a destroyer (not counting carriers) and a modern destroyer is like the size of a WW2 cruiser and more heavily armed than a battleship. A lot of milSF does the WW1 era ship classes because they're cool, distinct, and have different roles. Just doesn't really apply to modern ships. Doesn't make that much sense in space either but, rule of cool.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:and a modern destroyer is like the size of a WW2 cruiser and more heavily armed than a battleship. That's why I love that moment in The Hunt for Red October with the briefing being all "this is a Typhoon class submarine. It displaces more than a WW2 aircraft carrier" and the one old Admiral has this expression that is "...gently caress." I just assume that I went back in time with an Arleigh Burke, I could annihilate the entire German fleet at Jutland without even getting my paint scratched.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 19:58
|
|
|
Sash! posted:I just assume that I went back in time with an Arleigh Burke, I could annihilate the entire German fleet at Jutland without even getting my paint scratched. Every time I watch The Final Countdown I want them to stick around and annihilate the Kido Butai so hard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 20:24
|
|
|
Sash! posted:I just assume that I went back in time with an Arleigh Burke, I could annihilate the entire German fleet at Jutland without even getting my paint scratched. Those missiles are long enough range they'd never even know you were there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 20:27
|
|
|
Sash! posted:That's why I love that moment in The Hunt for Red October with the briefing being all "this is a Typhoon class submarine. It displaces more than a WW2 aircraft carrier" and the one old Admiral has this expression that is "...gently caress." You got me trying to figure out what's possible with the typical Burke loadout against dreadnought and superdreadnought battleships. I can't find enough detail on the attack profile for modern Standard missiles would do against heavily armored ships. I suspect the experience of a beyond-visual-range attack by guided missiles would scare the poo poo out of the High Seas Fleet and send them back to port, but I'm not at all sure you'd sink any of the battleships or battlecruisers. You need either heavier missiles or something that's going to attack deck armor to sink the big ships.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 20:35
|
|
|
Sash! posted:That's why I love that moment in The Hunt for Red October with the briefing being all "this is a Typhoon class submarine. It displaces more than a WW2 aircraft carrier" and the one old Admiral has this expression that is "...gently caress." That's almost true even when it's surfaced, provided the carrier's not full
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 20:52
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:You got me trying to figure out what's possible with the typical Burke loadout against dreadnought and superdreadnought battleships. I can't find enough detail on the attack profile for modern Standard missiles would do against heavily armored ships. I suspect the experience of a beyond-visual-range attack by guided missiles would scare the poo poo out of the High Seas Fleet and send them back to port, but I'm not at all sure you'd sink any of the battleships or battlecruisers. You need either heavier missiles or something that's going to attack deck armor to sink the big ships. There is a reason no modern naval ship is armored. Modern missiles would punch right through the armor of even the biggest Battleship.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 20:53
|
|
|
ElBrak posted:There is a reason no modern naval ship is armored. Modern missiles would punch right through the armor of even the biggest Battleship. Big modern anti-ship missiles, like the kind the Soviets developed to destroy aircraft carriers, yes, they're coming in with more mass and kinetic energy than the rounds BBs were armored against, and that's even before you consider the big fuckoff warheads on them. But that is not the sort of thing carried by a modern guided missile destroyer. At best, you're talking a few Harpoons, which aren't going to do much to an armored belt. The vast majority of their loadouts are anti-aircraft missiles with maybe 100lbs of so of explosive fill. They are not going to punch through any armor on a battleship. Now, battleships were not armored everywhere, and bombarding one with 92 VLS cell's worth of SM2s will very probably scrub off all the comms gear and whatever radars are sitting out, but the deck armor, the belt, the turrets, the 17" or so of armor on the conning tower? The missiles carried by a modern destroyer aren't going to do anything against that other than mar the paint. (Conceivably the Mk46 torpedoes on the ASROCs might do something, but (a) tiny warheads since they were designed to kill submarines, where the water pressure does most of the water, and BBs were armored against torpedoes and (b) I don't know if those even have a surface attack mode. A modern heavyweight torpedo on the other hand would likely send a BB to the bottom in two big pieces.) And modern ships are definitely armored, it's just that the armor doesn't take the form of big metal plates. It's armor of form: redundancy, compartmentalization, damage control. They're tough (or at least, they're supposed to be, things like the LCS are garbage). Here's a frigate being SINKEXed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVsnUsbJ-Xk Now on one hand there's no fuel or anything flammable on board, the missile magazines are empty, etc. But it gets hit with four Harpoons, a couple of Hellfires, a a 2000lb bomb, a 500lb bomb, and stayed floating for hours until a Mk48 finished her off. That is intrinsically a very tough little ship. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Feb 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 21:04
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Big modern anti-ship missiles, like the kind the Soviets developed to destroy aircraft carriers, yes, they're coming in with more mass and kinetic energy than the rounds BBs were armored against, and that's even before you consider the big fuckoff warheads on them. But that is not the sort of thing carried by a modern guided missile destroyer. At best, you're talking a few Harpoons, which aren't going to do much to an armored belt. The vast majority of their loadouts are anti-aircraft missiles with maybe 100lbs of so of explosive fill. They are not going to punch through any armor on a battleship. The second paragraph is the only one I disagree with. Since Sash! specified Jutland, they'd be old ships with minimal superstructure and weak deck armor, since the threat was assumed to be broadside gunnery. If the Standard in anti-ship mode has a top attack profile, they might be able to penetrate and cause unholy destruction below decks. If they're hitting side armor on big ships, they might do damage via shock effects, but they're not going to sink a dreadnought.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 21:26
|
|
|
ElBrak posted:There is a reason no modern naval ship is armored. Modern missiles would punch right through the armor of even the biggest Battleship. The question I suppose would be if you go for a pop up attack which would wreck internals, or a sea skimming attack to try and put a whole in the water line. The pop up attack would have the advantage of thinner deck armor but I am not sure that would even matter. On the other hand the sea skimming attack might be confused for a torpedo so it might allow you to hide from ze Germans a while longer. All things considered the bigger issue would be having some way to see over the horizon to see them coming. So long as you can take a helo with you the problem would sort itself out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 21:26
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spcJW2MQHnE
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 22:01
|
|
|
Sink the Royal Navy instead, they're a more worthy target than the second-rate continentals in the Hochseeflotte
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 22:10
|
|
|
It doesn't matter how great your ship is if someone gets a lucky shot that cause the rudder to get stuck to one side and your big bad battleship just goes in circles while everyone else takes pot shots at it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 22:23
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:The second paragraph is the only one I disagree with. Since Sash! specified Jutland, they'd be old ships with minimal superstructure and weak deck armor, since the threat was assumed to be broadside gunnery. If the Standard in anti-ship mode has a top attack profile, they might be able to penetrate and cause unholy destruction below decks. If they're hitting side armor on big ships, they might do damage via shock effects, but they're not going to sink a dreadnought. I was more responding to "even the biggest battleship," so I was approaching this in the context of WWII.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 22:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 11:17 |
|
|
I'm rewatching the first seasons and realized there's 2 important things I never understood: 1- why did the protogen guys boarded the Donnager? 2- who started the shooting over ganymede and why? I just can't parse that scene: 1) Bobbie tells in the radio they might be getting charged 2) loses radio 3) ship captain get angry and yells something about needing visual of ground 4) everyone starts shooting
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 00:18
|
|