Trying to create the cause behind Space Force going from Air Force culture to Naval culture in the future

[Scott Kenny]

I think it's right for what's there in the CIC during normal operations. Need to pester some of the skimmers here to run a sanity check, though.

@johnpjones1775 @Reuben James any comments on the CIC manning?

 

[johnpjones1775]

@johnpjones1775 @Reuben James any comments on the CIC manning?

I have no clue what is being discussed here…

 

[Seragina]

About the CIC are you going to have one operator for each radar? I assume at least 6 aegis-like arrays and maybe some illuminators.
Or is the sensor fusion a 3D display and only a few are needed?

 

[johnpjones1775]

About the CIC are you going to have one operator for each radar? I assume at least 6 aegis-like arrays and maybe some illuminators.
Or is the sensor fusion a 3D display and only a few are needed?

For what?

Number of arrays has no bearing on number of radar operators. They all go to the same console, and you only need one pair of eyes to look at a console screen.

 

[Scott Kenny]

About the CIC are you going to have one operator for each radar? I assume at least 6 aegis-like arrays and maybe some illuminators.
Or is the sensor fusion a 3D display and only a few are needed?

I've been assuming sensor fusion and one operator. Maybe a couple, just to prevent user overload. Not one per array and one per illuminator.

I have no clue what is being discussed here…

Is this a normal number of bodies on watch for normal watch, or is this more typical of battlestations manning?

Surface ship CIC watches:

a. Tactical Action Officer (TAO)- He or she represents the commanding officer on all matters concerning the tactical employment and defense of the ship. Display and decision (D&D) area and must be kept informed of the general tactical situation in order to make the best evaluation of the information available in CIC.

b. CIC Watch Officer (CICWO)- Responsible for the coordination of all CIC functions. He or she coordinates all surface and tactical information, makes recommendations to the evaluator/TAO and to conn, and supervises the collection and display of all available information on surface contacts.

c. Electronic Warfare Supervisor (EWS)- EW watch supervisor is responsible to the CIC watch officer or the TAO, or to the EW watch officer (if assigned), for the following duties:

• · Evaluating EW data and making required internal and external reports.
  · Supervising the filtering of EW data for display on various plots.
  · Exercising the overall control of the EW watch section, including monitoring intercept search operations; coordinating watch rotation and equipment use; and supervising on-watch training and normal watch routines, such as publication inventory, equipment operational checks, and log keeping.

d. Air Warfare Coordinator (AWC)- He or she will be responsible for the collection of information in their particular warfare area and the dissemination to the force of evaluated information in those areas. Warfare commanders will maintain continuous liaison with each other to ensure timely flow of mutually supporting information and avoid mutual interference. systems which have effective ranges that extend beyond the local area in which the ship is operating. Since warfare commanders are normally assigned authority to employ these weapons, this may cause situations in which one commander has tactical control of a ship and another has control of that ship’s force weapons systems. If firing the weapon does not interfere with the tasking of the ship, there is generally no problem. However, if significant maneuvering is required, coordination between the appropriate warfare commanders is vital in prosecuting the threat.

e. Surface Warfare Coordinator (SUWC)- Responsible for the collection of information in their particular warfare area and the dissemination to the force of evaluated information in those areas. Warfare commanders will maintain continuous liaison with each other to ensure timely flow of mutually supporting information and avoid mutual interference. systems which have effective ranges that extend beyond the local area in which the ship is operating. Since warfare commanders are normally assigned authority to employ these weapons, this may cause situations in which one commander has tactical control of a ship and another has control of that ship’s force weapons systems. If firing the weapon does not interfere with the tasking of the ship, there is generally no problem. However, if significant maneuvering is required, coordination between the appropriate warfare commanders is vital in prosecuting the threat.

f. Undersea Warfare Coordinator (USWC)- He or she is responsible for the collection of information in their particular warfare area and the dissemination to the force of evaluated information in those areas. Warfare commanders will maintain continuous liaison with each other to ensure timely flow of mutually supporting information and avoid mutual interference. systems which have effective ranges that extend beyond the local area in which the ship is operating. Since warfare commanders are normally assigned authority to employ these weapons, this may cause situations in which one commander has tactical control of a ship and another has control of that ship’s force weapons systems. If firing the weapon does not interfere with the tasking of the ship, there is generally no problem. However, if significant maneuvering is required, coordination between the appropriate warfare commanders is vital in prosecuting the threat.

g. Air Controllers (ASTAC/AIC/HDC)- Air intercept controller (AIC) exercise close or advisory control of intercepts and other non-ASW aircraft assigned to own ship. They can vector aircraft on intercepts recommended by the NTDS program or based on their own determination. They are directly responsible to the SWC for the effective intercept of specified targets and for vectoring intercept aircraft to CAP stations. The antisubmarine air controller (ASAC) controls fixed-wing and rotary aircraft engaged in ASW operations. The ASAC is responsible for the flight safety of ASW assets under that officer’s control when operating in a missile engagement zone.

h. CIC Watch Supervisor (CICWS)- He or she has the same duties as the senior Operations Specialist, which are the following:

• · Brief the watch team on any expected threats.
  · Ensure that personnel are employing proper procedures for assigned watch stations.
  · Supervise the setup and operation of all equipment in CIC.
  · Review all intelligence data.
  · Verify that R/T nets are guarded and that a proper log is maintained, if applicable.
  · Determine the location of the OTC, the CWC, and other warfare coordinators and commanders.
  · Review the message board.
  · Ensure that all status boards are up-to-date.
  · Maintain geographic and strategic plots.
  · Supervise the overall operation of enlisted personnel in CIC.
  · Assist the officer of the deck (OOD) in determining meanings of tactical signals and station assignments and provide maneuvering recommendations to execute those signals and assignments.

i. Radar Operator- Tracks and reports all surface contacts, using proper designations; manipulates the surface search radar controls to maintain the radar in peak operating condition; and reports positions of ASW aircraft and assist ships to the DRT plotter.

j. Shipping Officer- Advises conn of the position, course, speed, and closest point of approach (CPA) of all surface contacts in the area, with particular emphasis on small craft appearing at short range and contacts that have changed course or have erratic courses and speeds.

k. Piloting Officer- He or she supervises the radar navigation team to ensure accurate and prompt fixing of the ship’s position by using all electronic means available. He advises conn of the ship’s position, recommended courses and times to turn, position of geographic and navigational objects in the vicinity of the ship, and any potential navigational hazards. The piloting officer recommends alternate tracks, if available, to the navigator and conn when the primary track is blocked or made hazardous by the presence of shipping or other contacts.

 

[johnpjones1775]

I've been assuming sensor fusion and one operator. Maybe a couple, just to prevent user overload. Not one per array and one per illuminator.



Is this a normal number of bodies on watch for normal watch, or is this more typical of battlestations manning?

For a capital ship? Maybe.
What do you mean by coordinator? Because I’m seeing coordinator but not really any shooters or anything, and weapons type and number of those weapons will play a big role

I was only ever on a destroyer so I’m making some assumptions here.

1 operator per console per deck gun.
1 operator for SAMs
1 operator for strike missiles
2-3 CT types
1 person per console per CIWS.

None GQ the gun consoles won’t be manned but the BDA cameras might be. (We manned OSS 24/7 as a navigation aid despite the manual apparently saying not to do that.)
So during GQ assume essentially 2 people per gun in CIC.

 

[Seragina]

For what?

Number of arrays has no bearing on number of radar operators. They all go to the same console, and you only need one pair of eyes to look at a console screen.

I should have said assigned sectors but since they equal array facing & coverage.

I've been assuming sensor fusion and one operator. Maybe a couple, just to prevent user overload. Not one per array and one per illuminator.

Right, but they aren't ever going to be overloaded as civilian air traffic controllers even a carrier won't be as busy. Especially, the communication part. It's all just tracking not always interacting.

For a capital ship? Maybe.
What do you mean by coordinator? Because I’m seeing coordinator but not really any shooters or anything, and weapons type and number of those weapons will play a big role

I was only ever on a destroyer so I’m making some assumptions here.

1 operator per console per deck gun.
1 operator for SAMs
1 operator for strike missiles
2-3 CT types
1 person per console per CIWS.

None GQ the gun consoles won’t be manned but the BDA cameras might be. (We manned OSS 24/7 as a navigation aid despite the manual apparently saying not to do that.)
So during GQ assume essentially 2 people per gun in CIC.

With sensor fusion and system fusion at hand isn't this too many?
A tactical officer/operator only needs to mark a target and assign a weapon to target it and give the order.
He woulld be able to keep an overview of his sector and adjust the level of intensity toward a target.

While with one per weapon the tactical officer would have to give each person a verbal order. Takes more time, potential confusion/mishearing etc. in the heat from the operators. The good thing is each one can troubleshoot their weapon independently.

 

[Scott Kenny]

For a capital ship? Maybe.
What do you mean by coordinator? Because I’m seeing coordinator but not really any shooters or anything, and weapons type and number of those weapons will play a big role

Not entirely sure myself. "Coordinator" is what the source used for that position. On subs we used a similar title for the doofus in Control managing contacts for the Offsadeck up in the top of the sail.

I was only ever on a destroyer so I’m making some assumptions here.


1 operator per console per deck gun.
1 operator for SAMs
1 operator for strike missiles
2-3 CT types
1 person per console per CIWS.

None GQ the gun consoles won’t be manned but the BDA cameras might be. (We manned OSS 24/7 as a navigation aid despite the manual apparently saying not to do that.)
So during GQ assume essentially 2 people per gun in CIC.

That is about what I was expecting for combat situations.

Also, CT types? crypto techs?

I should have said assigned sectors but since they equal array facing & coverage.

Every display I've seen has been polar type, with all contacts displayed around the ship.

Ignoring those guys writing backwards, of course. Don't need them when you have computers.

Right, but they aren't ever going to be overloaded as civilian air traffic controllers even a carrier won't be as busy. Especially, the communication part. It's all just tracking not always interacting.

Depends on how busy a place you're in.

With sensor fusion and system fusion at hand isn't this too many?
A tactical officer/operator only needs to mark a target and assign a weapon to target it and give the order.
He woulld be able to keep an overview of his sector and adjust the level of intensity toward a target.

While with one per weapon the tactical officer would have to give each person a verbal order. Takes more time, potential confusion/mishearing etc. in the heat from the operators. The good thing is each one can troubleshoot their weapon independently.

And that's why it's done. So that if a weapon goes down it already has a person doing immediate actions, instead of needing to wait for the world's loudest "click" and then the Captain having to order someone to start troubleshooting.

 

[Seragina]

And that's why it's done. So that if a weapon goes down it already has a person doing immediate actions, instead of needing to wait for the world's loudest "click" and then the Captain having to order someone to start troubleshooting.

But the CIC controler does it on the console software/net side and not directly at the weapon where weapons technicians are anyway?

 

[Scott Kenny]

But the CIC controler does it on the console software/net side and not directly at the weapon where weapons technicians are anyway?

Depends on whether the faults are at the mount end or at the CIC console end.

 

[Seragina]

Depends on whether the faults are at the mount end or at the CIC console end.

Hm, wouldn't be having a few technicians on hand in CIC be able to take care of it among other possible damage CIC takes be better?
Ofc having it all is best.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Not entirely sure myself. "Coordinator" is what the source used for that position. On subs we used a similar title for the doofus in Control managing contacts for the Offsadeck up in the top of the sail.



That is about what I was expecting for combat situations.

Also, CT types? crypto techs?



Every display I've seen has been polar type, with all contacts displayed around the ship.

Ignoring those guys writing backwards, of course. Don't need them when you have computers.



Depends on how busy a place you're in.



And that's why it's done. So that if a weapon goes down it already has a person doing immediate actions, instead of needing to wait for the world's loudest "click" and then the Captain having to order someone to start troubleshooting.

Yes CT is crypto. USN has like 4 variants of CT, and I don’t remember what any of them were lol.

 

[publiusr]

The basic premise is false. What says the naval culture IS better?

Well, we all saw what the Air Force got us, didn’t we?

They want to replace A-10 with a crop-duster, after all.

I vote for more Truax, less Schriever, please.

The Return of William Proxmire | THE UNIVERSE OF LARRY NIVEN

larryniven.net

In terms of repairs, it might help if spaceship hulls had a BEAM module covering, with an astronaut between the hull and the inflatable doing work. No chance of floating off.

More importantly with that covering at your back…cinched down to either side with cables—you can now *bear down* to do work.

Lots of NewSpace kids think robots can just assemble everything. The shuttle orbiter mass gave it great authority and stability in ISS construction, Hubble repairs, etc.

A big challenge will be Moonbase movements. I think zip lines will be of more use than bunny hops.

The real thing to watch for would be forklifts. They need to go dead slow. A good bit of the weight is gone but the mass is still there. Too sharp of a turn, and you get a slow motion rollover as that mass still wants to go in that certain direction (Newton style) forklift steering input be damned.

So you creep about.

I think Scott is absolutely correct in saying that a submariner’s mindset is of greater utility than that of a fighter pilot.

 

[Scott Kenny]

In terms of repairs, it might help if spaceship hulls had a BEAM module covering, with an astronaut between the hull and the inflatable doing work. No chance of floating off.

Yes, the idea of going Dutchman** should make everyone's sphincter pucker tight enough to make diamonds.

** from the ghost story of the Flying Dutchman ship, cursed to drift forever and never return to port.

More importantly with that covering at your back…cinched down to either side with cables—you can now *bear down* to do work.

Lots of NewSpace kids think robots can just assemble everything. The shuttle orbiter mass gave it great authority and stability in ISS construction, Hubble repairs, etc.

Maybe? I'd need to see more information on that.

Magnetic boots, elbow and kneepads would be required for any space suits intended for topside** hull repair.

** "topside" is working on the hull, "outside" is away from the hull.

 

[publiusr]

Maybe? I'd need to see more information on that.

One example:

3D printing spiderfab factory in space developed for NASA

the NASA development will enable additive manufacturing of high performance support structures and integration of reflectors and antennas in outerspace.

www.designboom.com

The trusselators that were going to be used in the 70’s-80’s had the big orbiter—so the dog still wagged the tail, as it were.

Even so, things can still get squirrelly

STS-99 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

—and that’s with a big orbiter mind you. I can’t help but think some tiny robot, or even Dragon hooked to Hubble—runs a risk of a Gemini 8

Tumbling and spaceflight: the Gemini VIII experience - PubMed

A malfunctioning orbital flight attitude thruster during the flight of Gemini VIII led to acceleration forces on astronauts Neil Armstrong (commander) and David Scott (pilot) that created the potential for derogation of oculo-vestibular and eye-hand coordination effects. The spacecraft attained...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

People snicker at my love for a Buran type Shuttle 2 with jets and no SSMEs, but Buran used kerosene—making it of more utility to folks in the field than a Starship grain silo with soldiers looking for liquid methane and LOX to get home?

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/holmes-is-amused-great-jeremy-brett-gif--544583779917640118/

We need more outsiders like yourself to help brainstorm humanities space future:

Bringing outsiders into the space fold

Bringing outsiders into the space fold

spacenews.com

The A-10 gave us grunts in the sky. I want them in space in something similarly sturdy.

 

[Scott Kenny]

One example:

3D printing spiderfab factory in space developed for NASA

the NASA development will enable additive manufacturing of high performance support structures and integration of reflectors and antennas in outerspace.

www.designboom.com

I meant the BEAM shelter.

Or was the 3d printed/robot assembled link supposed to make the shelter to give the EVA worker something to push against?

We need more outsiders like yourself to help brainstorm humanities space future:

Bringing outsiders into the space fold

Bringing outsiders into the space fold

spacenews.com

The A-10 gave us grunts in the sky. I want them in space in something similarly sturdy.

We're stuck in "every gram counts" until we get Torch engines capable of multiple gees of acceleration.

 

[Seragina]

There are no perfect solution for improving EVA operation.
Keep in mind that any will themselves require maintenance. At best this only increase complexity and less overall time. At worse the total amount of work increases.

One example:

3D printing spiderfab factory in space developed for NASA

the NASA development will enable additive manufacturing of high performance support structures and integration of reflectors and antennas in outerspace.

www.designboom.com

I consider this more of a fall back or emergency back up system because it requires resources and more fine maintenance work.
A means to help with work should be backed into the design literally from the beginning.
I'm thinking of longitudal rips, beams (similar to the F119 engine's visible structure) to double as rails for both transport and guid-rail similar to train tracks.

The trusselators that were going to be used in the 70’s-80’s had the big orbiter—so the dog still wagged the tail, as it were.

This is going to be one of the key means to lenghten ships while making its contruction more compact in the shipyard.
They form a cagy tunnel which could be used to transport or move around safer.

 

[Byeman]

I vote for more Truax, less Schriever, please.

Shows what little you know. Truax has no legacy, just a footnote.

 

[Byeman]

In terms of repairs, it might help if spaceship hulls had a BEAM module covering, with an astronaut between the hull and the inflatable doing work. No chance of floating off.

Unworkable and really doesn't help. The damage is going to be to first to the BEAM cover and not the hull. What keeps the BEAM cover away from the hull? How are thrusters, sensors, antennas, etc work with the BEAM in the way? Repairs are mostly going to be needed for the thrusters, sensors, antennas, solar arrays, radiators etc than the hull.

 

[Byeman]

I can’t help but think some tiny robot, or even Dragon hooked to Hubble—runs a risk of a Gemini 8

Another case of lacking an understanding of spaceflight operations.
1. Gemini 8 issue has nothing related here
a. It had nothing to do with docking with another vehicle
b. The failure was on the capsule
c. Gemini had stronger thrusters than the Agena
2. Dragon has stronger thrusters than Hubble (which actually doesn't have any).
3. Most active docking vehicles are going to have stronger thrusters than the target.

People snicker at my love for a Buran type Shuttle 2 with jets and no SSMEs, but Buran used kerosene—making it of more utility to folks in the field than a Starship grain silo with soldiers looking for liquid methane and LOX to get home?

Wrong again
Your analogy is inane and inaccurate. Kerosene is useless without LOX which is more as volatile than methane.
Jets are not needed.

The A-10 gave us grunts in the sky. I want them in space in something similarly sturdy.

Why? To do what?

We need more outsiders like yourself to help brainstorm humanities space future:

Not really

 

[Byeman]

Yes, the idea of going Dutchman** should make everyone's sphincter pucker tight enough to make diamonds.

The term is going Pruett

Magnetic boots, elbow and kneepads would be required for any space suits intended for topside** hull repair.

Magnetic? there are no ferrous metals used on spacecraft structures

** "topside" is working on the hull, "outside" is away from the hull.

Everything is outside and far from going "topside". It is more like leaving a submarine.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Shows what little you know. Truax has no legacy, just a footnote.

Legacy or how well known something is doesn’t really say anything about quality.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The term is going Pruett

Not in anything I've read.

Magnetic? there are no ferrous metals used on spacecraft structures

So add them where people will be walking and working.

Everything is outside and far from going "topside". It is more like leaving a submarine.

Yes, and we called standing outside the hull "going topside"

 

[publiusr]

People would call Starship insane if I suggested.

The difference between my ideal spacecraft and Elon’s?

Hundreds of billions of dollars he has that I don’t.

Wolfram’s fortune got him noticed.

 

[uk 75]

The year is 2026 and spacecraft look pretty small to me

Spaceplanes v Capsules - Which Will Get Us to the Stars? -

Following the successful testing and regular flights of Space X’s “Crew Dragon” and continuing test work on the Boeing CST-100 Starliner, a fleet of new

aboutaerospace.com

Dont matter much whether the folks in them look to the Navy (Star Trek) or the Air Force (Rogers, Buck Dare, Dan).

 

[publiusr]

Ships at sea increase in size…but years of cramming things inside Delta or Atlas shrouds left a sociological mark—thinking small.

I remember some talking about pixie dust nanites being deposited by Delta IIs on the lunar surface building moon bases or whatever.

The idea of “just make rockets bigger” only occurred to the Soviets, MSFC, Elon…and now—China.

Before USSF, the space warfighter’s duties were divvied up across the other branches of the service—and always played second fiddle to carrier/fighter wish-lists. Don’t think that was by accident.

I never hear anyone fuss about how it is a waste of money to use submarines (each far more costly than a Buran 2 concept) to put a handful of people on shore.

Thinking bigger in space faces sociological obstacles. Folks who want a greater space presence often call for government space cuts—even though space is already underfunded in comparison with other projects.

Greens don’t want anything but climate sats up there to lay Green Guilt trips on folks—and old fogies used to payloads not much wider than my waistline are perfectly happy with the occasional capsule, comsat, or some also-ran probe or bomb-disposal robot on Mars.

 

[Byeman]

theNot in anything I've read.

wrong books then

So add them where people will be walking and working.

Impossible to know.
A. Using your naval centric, what part of the hull? Damage is going to be random. Covering everything with iron would be inane.
b. Most of the structure is going to be truss like vs a "hull" like. There are better ways to anchor and move outside the vehicle than using magnets.
c. High magnetic fields are not good around electronics

Yes, and we called standing outside the hull "going topside"

a. Not divers working on the hull
b. See above. Standing is not going to the mode of working or moving on the exterior.

 

[Byeman]

The difference between my ideal spacecraft and Elon’s?

Elon knows how to design viable spacecraft. What are your credentials?

 

[Byeman]

tWhy do you keep posting this nonsense.

Ships at sea increase in size…but years of cramming things inside Delta or Atlas shrouds left a sociological mark—thinking small.

False claim. Even with larger fairings available, Delta or Atlas class spacecraft still fly in them. Small payloads still flew on the shuttle.
Larger spacecraft are not flying at a greater

I remember some talking about pixie dust nanites being deposited by Delta IIs on the lunar surface building moon bases or whatever.

Because you were snorting it.

The idea of “just make rockets bigger” only occurred to the Soviets, MSFC, Elon…and now—China.

wrong.
a. Name an operational "bigger" rocket in the USSR after Proton. The Soviets had no need.
b. Name a new operational big MSFC rocket other that SLS. NASA had no need either to "just make rockets bigger, Congress did to get votes
c. Ecomlon wants to go to Mars, so he needs a bigger rocket and not to "just make rockets bigger"

Before USSF, the space warfighter’s duties were divvied up across the other branches of the service—

Not true. Other than controlling DSCS and UHF Comsats, the duties haven't changed.

I never hear anyone fuss about how it is a waste of money to use submarines (each far more costly than a Buran 2 concept) to put a handful of people on shore.

Wrong
A. it is not an equivalent analogy.
B. how it is a waste of money?
C. and no, Buran 2 would be more costly than a nuke sub\.

Thinking bigger in space faces sociological obstacles. Folks who want a greater space presence often call for government space cuts

Unsubstantiated. Where is documented proof? And more than just links that you think proves your point. I want multiple sources by relevant authors that state your points.

—even though space is already underfunded in comparison with other projects.

What relevant projects?

—and old fogies used to payloads not much wider than my waistline are perfectly happy with the occasional capsule, comsat, or some also-ran probe or bomb-disposal robot on Mars.

Better than senile dinosaur lamenting about days of old that never really existed.
You must be morbidly obese with payloads like NRO Titan IV spacecraft, Spacehab, MRO, Juno, MSL, M2020, JWST, SDO. MMS, Europa Clipper, etc.

 

[Reuben James]

@johnpjones1775 @Reuben James any comments on the CIC manning?

I appreciate the mention, but I'm a little out of my depth here. Very interesting thread though.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I appreciate the mention, but I'm a little out of my depth here. Very interesting thread though.

Okay.

Have I missed any other known surface Navy folks here?

===============

This event is likely 100+ years in the future, as it takes a very persistent space presence needed to get to ships or stations big enough that 25-50 permanent crew is normal.

Elon and Bezos doing asteroid mining out in the belt, moon bases/colonies, Mars colonies, etc.

 

[1635yankee]

Long voyages, far from support, maybe, although naval vessels (LCS) seem to be going more in the direction of air force practice: all service at base, none away

 

[Scott Kenny]

although naval vessels (LCS) seem to be going more in the direction of air force practice: all service at base, none away

Yes, and all the Sailors absolutely hate that.

Do you like the idea of traveling weeks or months with some piece of equipment broken? I sure don't!

 

[aim9xray]

Do you like the idea of traveling weeks or months with some piece of equipment broken? I sure don't!

Flash Immediate: ALCON. Item NSN 1680-01-585-5099 is determined to be Extreme Safety Hazard Category Z-1. Item shall be Red Tagged, safety wired inoperable and placed under armed guard until further notice. Alternate compliance method: eject through airlock; perform safe distancing maneuver and nuclear self destruct per AUC 3423. Compliance is Mandatory. ALCON shall report compliance with either method.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Flash Immediate: ALCON. Item NSN 1680-01-585-5099 is determined to be Extreme Safety Hazard Category Z-1. Item shall be Red Tagged, safety wired inoperable and placed under armed guard until further notice. Alternate compliance method: eject through airlock; perform safe distancing maneuver and nuclear self destruct per AUC 3423. Compliance is Mandatory. ALCON shall report compliance with either method.

Touche.

Yes, if that is happening then the crews will put up with a piece of gear INOP.

And I'll bet that 99% of crews will choose the "eject through airlock" option, just to blow it up.

 

[Seragina]

Well, ihmo a space faring society will have a different mindset and everyday common sense.
Wasteful use of resources will be frown upon. Littering likely borders on criminal or even capital offense as for example people smashing beer bottles could cause damage by force or fluid interaction. Damaging a flower bed/trees could also be a viewed as a serious offense as they are part of the biosphere/lifesupport system design. Same with open fire like some people did try to cook on a plane.
Similarly to how pets are not allowed to run free on planes because they could bring a it down. You might need not only a special license but the approved space need to be specially designed, too, so they won't corrode away in hours. Things will be recycled as much as possible. And if things have to be spaced they will need to be atomized for example in the engine's exhaust.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Noticed a couple of posts I had missed.

Sounds about right.

I assume the rampup is linear so I can average it to 35 gees for 3000 s; the final v is 1029.69825 km/s =~0.0034 c and burn distance 1544547.375 km = 1.5 million km. Good range for direct shot.
At that distance the target might see it ~5.15 s after launch and would have 2995 s time to evade.
Hidding the exhaust is a must but since orbital mechanics doesn't produce linear flight paths this is impossible.
Since this engine isn't truely an ionic or plasma drive, well, the hot gas is technicaly, but you don't have the means to focus the exhaust into a beam. Even so it would diverge anyway due to charge repulsion.
There's no pressure in space allowing the typical exhaust plum to expands a lot.

Since we no longer care about every gram courtesy of working Torch engines, we can afford to use a nice big superexpansion nozzle, something that will cool the exhaust clear down to 3-5K. Invisible against deep space background, and colder(!) than the solar ecliptic background.

This applies to both the ships and the Zubrin Drive missiles.

All right, skipping the long discussion on guidance and missile warfare etc.
How many missile would there be? (see below)

The Zubrin-drive ones? Given that they're 50-tonne monsters, I was assuming ~24-50 (maybe 64 at most). Probably another 50-100ish (64-128?) Torpedoes, the slower weapons with maybe double-to-triple the ship's acceleration but not the crazy burn length that the Zubrin Missiles have.

Alright, continuing.
Let's set a more practical range first.
From past discussion on naval escort range vs. route distance we got a 1.444x modifier. And since this is space 1x is required for contingency reserve fuel.
=> 2*23770*1.444+5702=74349.76 m/s delta_v needed for "range"

After running the rocket equation on it. It appears this design doesn't have sufficient headroom for higher gee than 3 gee.
Too bad.

This is where we get into the difference between wet-naval or air and space ops.

For example, a one-man space fighter ends up needing 4x the delta-V of a missile**: It needs to burn to fly away from the carrier to the target. It likely needs to burn to a halt relative to the target (or to the carrier), then it needs to burn to fly away from the target back to the carrier, and then burn to a halt relative to the carrier to dock again.

** And that's why the smallest "fighter" is going to be something the size of the Expanse's Rocinante, not a Macross Valkyrie.

So I'm expecting a hell of a lot more than 1.4(repeating)x delta vee spent as the escorts bounce around the actual route. Not counting drunkwalking/jinking while in combat.



Also, note that I'm talking about using a gas-core fusion nuke-thermal rocket for basic ship propulsion, the Zubrin NSWRs are strictly for missile drives.

Kinda like how we only use solid rockets for missiles, not for general aircraft propulsion. (yes, JATO/RATO bottles existed)

Provision becomes a problem the longer they are deployed. Inside the solar system you are a few months to at most 2 years away from a planet. It's not too bad to worry about.

Now maintening is the true nightmare. More on that in another post later. gotta go.

On Ohios, we went out with a 90 day loadout and a planned mission a couple weeks less than that.

 

[publiusr]

On the subject

https://phys.org/news/2024-12-submarines-space-exploration.amp

Inner-space

https://phys.org/news/2026-01-submersibles-revealing-deep-sea.html

 

[Seragina]

Noticed a couple of posts I had missed.

Life happens.

Since we no longer care about every gram courtesy of working Torch engines, we can afford to use a nice big superexpansion nozzle, something that will cool the exhaust clear down to 3-5K. Invisible against deep space background, and colder(!) than the solar ecliptic background.

This applies to both the ships and the Zubrin Drive missiles.

But what about the heat energy generators feeding on the torch engine?

The Zubrin-drive ones? Given that they're 50-tonne monsters, I was assuming ~24-50 (maybe 64 at most). Probably another 50-100ish (64-128?) Torpedoes, the slower weapons with maybe double-to-triple the ship's acceleration but not the crazy burn length that the Zubrin Missiles have.

I suppose that'll suffice.

This is where we get into the difference between wet-naval or air and space ops.

For example, a one-man space fighter ends up needing 4x the delta-V of a missile**: It needs to burn to fly away from the carrier to the target. It likely needs to burn to a halt relative to the target (or to the carrier), then it needs to burn to fly away from the target back to the carrier, and then burn to a halt relative to the carrier to dock again.

** And that's why the smallest "fighter" is going to be something the size of the Expanse's Rocinante, not a Macross Valkyrie.

So I'm expecting a hell of a lot more than 1.4(repeating)x delta vee spent as the escorts bounce around the actual route. Not counting drunkwalking/jinking while in combat.

So more like a mothership with attached smaller ships. I know there's a term for that I can't recall now.

Also, note that I'm talking about using a gas-core fusion nuke-thermal rocket for basic ship propulsion, the Zubrin NSWRs are strictly for missile drives.

Kinda like how we only use solid rockets for missiles, not for general aircraft propulsion. (yes, JATO/RATO bottles existed)

Gotcha.

On Ohios, we went out with a 90 day loadout and a planned mission a couple weeks less than that.

There's no way anything will be a short trip. Mainly, creature compfort sets a limit on speed. A year might be the minimum.

 

[Scott Kenny]

But what about the heat energy generators feeding on the torch engine?

Sure, you'd see those from somewhere around the orbit of Mars, but you're not going to see burns for maneuvering.

And the Zubrin missiles would not have much heat outside the exhaust plume.

So more like a mothership with attached smaller ships. I know there's a term for that I can't recall now.

"Tender" is more accurate than "carrier" here, as in Destroyer Tender or Submarine Tender.

There's no way anything will be a short trip. Mainly, creature compfort sets a limit on speed. A year might be the minimum.

Possibly. So we'd need to get creative with food stores. Likely hardtack instead of raw flour, for example. I'm also assuming hydro and/or aeroponics used as both additional oxygen generation, food, and "green space therapy" for crew sanity.

Depends on just how mighty the torch drives are. A drive that makes 0.1m/s/s can push you from Earth to Mars in 35 days. Just a reminder, that's only 1/100 of a gee.