YES.

That's no warship. That's a MOON!

It goes there and stays there for protection, any factions start up shit, they get a nice does of bombardment.

Anyway, other guys wanted to assault pirates, I don't think it's a good idea.

Just for interest, how big id the ransom?

>>10238033
I thought these two ships were supposed to be intra-system ships, only meant to operate within Sol space and deal with the pirate crisis.

Yeah, we're hardly the only ones acting in the solar system. Also, I believe in the carrier idea. Having hangars and drones/fighters with interplanetary range.

>>10238122
In the end, it adds up to $5680b. That's the ransom for all of the lives, all of the resources, everything to come out *mostly* unscathed. This split between the corporations and nations.

I would suggest building only one with full capabilities, and then many with lesser capabilities.

>>10238157
If we deal with this situation, could we negotiate for 20% of that? or more?

>>10238138
In that case, change that price to: $120b.

>>10238154
US naval doctrine has shown that carriers, while wonderful at force project, are still very vulnerable.
We can make space carriers, but they'll still need to be escorted by destroyers and cruisers.

>>10238176
You'd have to ask.

Wait.

Isn't it easier just to build the AC-Warship in AC on one of our TWO inactive yards there? Also, vote that we pump out support vehicles, shuttles, perhaps an orbital base for Ares there.

>>10238033
>>10238157

Well, in terms of technological advancement, how advanced/regressed our ships will be?

>>10238186
A mere $40 billion difference between interstellar and system-bound drives?
I think the extra $80 billion to make both of these battleships interstellar-capable is a worthy investment.

>>10238176
I doubt we could deal with that problem alone, man

>>10238237
Plasma, would it be possible to give them the interstellar capabilities at a later point in time?

>>10238223
It would take far less time, at least.
If we're going to build one in-system, maybe just 4 missile silos, 2 PD platforms, and 5 mass drivers.
No one else there has space warfare capability, so we don't need to go all-out.

>>10238245
If we were to deal with it, we would make our trillion owed with only 20% of the ransom.

>>10238285
>No one else there has space warfare capability

Are you sure? Are we, like, the first ones to build warships?

>>10238245
Should we talk with our overlords at STFU, see if they like the idea of us taking the fight to the pirates, and try to rope in some of the major nations for military expertise and personnel support?

>>10238237
$40b between Alpha Centauri worthy and intrastellar, assuming you still want it to move fairly quickly.
If not, I could drop it another $10b.
>>10238228
Currently: At the very cutting edge of military technology in space.
>>10238260
They're modular, so yes.

>>10238286

You think we can take care of that incident within a year with acceptable losses alone?

I vote no.

Still, check around what others are doing.

>>10238304
Apparently the only ones as far as you know.
Except the pirates got their tech from somewhere.

>>10238286
I am not denying that, I am just in doubt if we can deal with this problem.


Plasma, can we ask for a specialist advice? Can we deal with those ships with our ships and technology.


ALSO, people, remember if we meddle in this the pirates might decide to execute hostages, destroy space stations, etc... who is going to get blamed you think?
I say no to stand alone operations.

>>10238304
We're not the first ones to build warships; the space pirates demonstrated that much.
But as for the Alpha Centauri system, let's break it down:
RDA - No need, and as far as I know, our colonies haven't reported seeing an RDA warship.
Chiron - None of the factions appear to have re-developed space flight yet.
Pandora - Those Na'vi will never know what hit'em...
Ares - Flintlocks vs. Orbital Strike.

>>10238362
There are no specialist on space combat. Space combat is merely theoretical at this stage - it's only become a reality now.

>>10238186
OK, I forget the standard construction time but I thinks it's around 5 years.

So, utilizing our 6 unoccupied construction yards (well, it will be 6 in a year) we can build six of these.
Which will come to 720bil.
We have 278bil, though we''ll have 507bil next year.
Right now, we could being construction of 2 warships, which is lucky because we have 2 free construction yards so lets do that first.

In the long run though, we're going to need a lone if we want them all to come out at roughly the same time.

>>10238358
It's probably Zorg guys or what's their name?

OOOOoooH.

Can't we just ask for nations of earth to fund our ships? That way we can put all construction yards to make the bestest of the best ships, maximum amount.

Would it be a good guesstimate that a fighter would cost somewhere around $20 bil?That is 10 bil combat system, 5 bil weapons system, 5 bil hull/propulsion. Although they would prolly have an inter-planetary range rather...

>>10238422
I agree with this. Lets see if the world would be willing to fund us.

OP, I must commend you. That is a well designed spacecraft.

Although some things that seem to be problematic:

- Can't tell if the engines push through the center of mass
- Can't tell where or what the radiators are

But assuming they are actually there, it's just a matter of seeing from another angle.

>>10238453
>>10238422

Or just offer to build warships for them...

>>10238452
thats why drones work better than fighters.

I agree with the protoss style carrier. Add 1 to construction que?

>>10238452
hmm, good idea

Plasma, how much would a maximum outfitted carrier and each fighter cost us?

>>10238453
mmm. No.

Let's see if our *traditional allies* would be willing to purchase units of our new design of warship. Cutting-edge.

>>10238397
2 warships, with top-of-the-line weapon and fire-control systems. Interstellar capable to Alpha Centauri. Maybe also outfitted with a combat portable portal to act as a portal carrier. Build them in Yards 7 and 8.
Use Hermes Yard 1 for an in-system gunboat to give us Orbital Strike capability (2 missiles, 2 PD, 5 mass drivers?).
But before we do anything, we should confer with STFU, any military assets they might have, and through them, other world governments and megacorps. I can't imagine they're happy paying ransom to a bunch of space pirate yahoos and terrorists.

>Since you guys want to build the biggest and best craft for combat, with MAXIMUM EVERYTHING, I have to put a limit down. So, to start with, that's twenty combat modules.

>That can go to Alpha Centauri and back? That would be $160b. Still want to purchase that?

How quickly can it reach Alpha Centauri?

>>10238475
give warships to potential competitors? Hell no!

>>10238477
Well, that could just as well be a drone as a fighter. Those 10 bil go into targeting systems and shit.

Since we are in the lead of space warfare.

I must again propose to build secondary R&D focused solely on military development. We don't want to lose our edge.

>>10238397
Bear in mind, each of these will have
-5 missile silos
-5 point defence platforms
-10 mass drivers
In total that's:
-30 Missile Silos (compared with an estimated resistance of 37 drones)
-30 Point defence lasers
-60 Mass drivers

I think we can handle almost anything the pirates can throw at us, especially if we get our hands on that portal warfare tech.

I say we go for it.

>>10238501
The super-powers aren't really our competitors...

>>10238500
We can build them in Alpha Centauri... but 5-6 years IIRC.

How about Morgan Industries? How do they feel about all this?

>>10238187
Dude, no.

Space is not an ocean. Space does not work like an ocean.

A spacecraft is more like a massive fighter jet the size of a submarine. Why would it carry fighters when it can go FASTER than its fighters? It could just fly to a target and launch the missiles itself instead.

>>10238464
Indeed, I agree. It is very well designed, although the flaws went unseen by my eyes.

So:
You request $720b from the various nations of the world, telling them your plan.
They agree, and give you the funding. These spacecraft should be finished by 2156. If the pirate problem is dealt with by then, however, the United Nations will gain full control over the spacecraft.

Deal or no deal?

>>10238556
I say deal, assuming S.T.F.U is ok with this.

>>10238551

Because losing a big ship hurts, losing a small ship doesn't. Especially when we can use portals to surprise-attack efficiently.

>>10238556
I am okay with the UN gaining control of them.
As long as we build failsafe's to detonate them if need be, or promise to pay them off instead of giving it to them.
Hell, with those we could hold the Earth Ransom.

>>10238556
>If the pirate problem is dealt with by then, however, the United Nations will gain full control over the spacecraft.

Lurkerfag here, y'all niggers better be ready to KEEP the pirate problem if it starts clearing up, or you'll default on the ship.

>>10238556
Then we need no drives in them, and what is our payment?

>>10238551
Yes, a space vessel could get within range of static defenses coming in at a single vector, rather than staying at a standoff distance and sending in multiple fighters at multiple vectors, which will then release a larger number of missiles at even more varying vectors.
Yes, I'm sure that the single big target is better than lots of little hard-to-hit targets that can still cripple defenses.

>>10238620
The initial offered sum from the coalition of nations and corporations is $586b.

>>10238616
Also, note that they have no problem with us keeping the warships if the pirates are there.

Note: need to find a way to increase construction speed. And keep world from stopping pirates.

>>10238576
Yeah, relay to STFU.

Though by that time we will have those funds ourself. How about if the problem is dealt by then we just repay them the amount with no interest (since we are hardly doing this for our own gain, we could just say "fuck it" and go colonizing/expanding).

>>10238422
Maybe get them to make up that extra 240bil we need.

If all the Earth fleets are so out of date, I reckon we can auction off the military tech we already have to the highest bidder anyway.

Right now I don't want to get involved in Earth politics, that ransom is owed to all the superpowers, we defeat the pirates and free the stations everyone is going to be grateful to us.

Wait ask them for additional 100 bil$

We'll build military R&D for that money. By the time we have build the ships we'll have EVEN better technology !!

>>10238641

I hope that is after construction costs.

>>10238647
What Earth fleets? There are no warships, only the pirate drones.

>>10238556
We don't need the whole 720bil, keep 2 or 4 ships under our control (that is, pay for them ourselves) and give the rest to the UN.

I am not so hot on giving away our fleet.... Explain them that we have funds to build 2 ships each year and that we are doing this only for the sake of justice/humanity/etc/bullshit. Seriously, this hardly concerns us.

>>10238647
I'd rather not sell any of our military tech yet; we aren't a primary military contractor. We don't know how the industry works, we aren't experienced in it, and shouldn't mess around in other people's yards (other megacorps that primarily deal in selling weapons tech). They probably won't be too annoyed if we build something for ourselves (they'll try to steal it of course), but as soon as we start selling, we become a competitor in their primary business, and they will do what they can to actively crush us.

>>10238539
Alright, Alpha Centauri is 4.37 lightyears from Sol.
Travel time is 6 years

Velocity = X
Distance = 4.37 Lightyears [4.134x10^13 km]
Time = 6 years

4.134x10^13 km divided by 6 years = 218,480 km/s

Which equals 0.7288 c or ~73% the speed of light.

How massive is this ship?

>>10238712
After construction costs. If you deal with the problem.

Deal? It seems like it.

>>10238691
Good idea.

>>10238647
Start selling some of our current ships to various Corporations to make up the cost?

Oh, and in the meantime, can we retrofit our space stations to defend themself?

>>10238633
And what do you think missiles do buddy?

Are you even using your brain here?

>>10238737
see
>>10238646
>>10238730

>>10238732

Huge. And yeah, .75c is the speed. Still, I for one don't need the ultra-hard sci-fi not working on this. I just want to exploit SPAAACE!

>>10238732
Depends. What was the energy expended to make the trip? Also, mass at max speed or rest?

>>10238732
снайпер, I know that the image might be quite hard sci-fi, but the rest of this thread isn't that hard sci-fi. If you want to know the science I am using for the propulsion mechanisms of these ships, here:
http://james-camerons-avatar.wikia.com/wiki/ISV_Venture_Star

>>10238737
Yeah, it looks like it's a deal. We'll probably need to coordinate with STFU and some of the nations' militaries on how to board and retake colonies and stations, though.
>>10238745
NO! DO NOT SELL!

>>10238721
Exactly.

>>10238773
We are already dealing with portals and some dream dimension called Umbra
We are waaaay pat hard sci-fi by now.

If we sell ships then rather to nations or UN, not other corps.

Man, you people, don't agree for potentially giving away our space ships...

After this whole ordeal, we could take contracts from UN or NATO (or whatever) to make them ships.

>>10238815
This.
Better to UN. They be like peace keeping force or something

>>10238783
Well the only reason I'm calculating this is because anything that travels at a significant fraction of the speed of light may as well be a relativistic kill vehicle.

>>10238732
http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/213.web.stuff/scott%20kircher/beamedcore.html

It's perfectly possible, especially with superconductors like Unobtainaium.

I'm for:
Getting Money To Build Ships.
Build Ships
Kick Ass
Get Money for Having Kicked Ass
Give Ships to UN

>>10238759
Yes, and I'm taking into consideration the reaction mass needed for all of the missiles and fighters (which is much more than simply large numbers of missiles on a single missile frigate) versus the cost of losing such a missile frigate, and factoring in the cost of losing some drones.
So from a reaction mass point of view, your idea makes sense. But taking into consideration that drones can also be outfitted with laser PD systems or mass drivers as well as missiles (with enough research), in the final calculation I think that that the carrier idea is more cost-effective when we take into consideration expected losses.
Otherwise, why even bother with ships? Why not just set up a massive missile battery on a space station and fire them on a ballistic arc towards the targets, and only activate their onboard drives when they're within a few hundred thousand kilometers of their goal?

>>10238899

That is, we get 720 to build the ships and then 586 for doing the quest.

And while we do this we build a vessel or two in AC.

>>10238899
>give some ships to the UN, keep others for our own purposes.
fixed

Oh, if we need so many years to build those ships.

We could as nations to give pirates ransom in very small amounts over the years to keep them still. How about that?

>>10238929
only 565 ? That's kind of low seeing how high the ransom was I would have though at least 1000

>>10238931
Well, but those ships we gotta fund ourselves. We can't expect them to actually pay for the ships we are going to use ourselves.

>>10238929
Alright, as long as we get paid and can have some ships by the end of it then I see nothing to complain about.

Year 2150:
In the middle of a conference, an Aperture scientist suddenly bursts into the room, leaps on the table and does the "early breakthrough" dance before being dragged away by security. The following are available:
Portal boarding module: It creates portals within a ship. $10b.
Portal shielding: The hull is covered with a smart material. Portals are created where impact is predicted. Experimental technology, can be glitchy. $100b per ship.
The construction of those six warships begins after funding is recieved. They will be finished by 2156.
No update from Ares. No casualties. Research continues as normal.
APERTURE SCIENCE IS HUNGRY FOR MORE RESEARCH PROJECTS.

Balance: $509b
Income: $231b

>>10238928
Okay, there's a very distinct difference between a drone and a fighter

A drone doesn't need to return to the mothership [why would it, complete waste of mass] nor is a drone controlled by a human pilot and subject to limitations inherent in people, like a low tolerance for G forces, and hefty life-support requirements.

A drone that carries a slew of missiles which it launches prior to trying to impact the target ship itself is a fantastically better investment than fighters. It is in essence a missile that carries missiles [or other weapons, IIRC dune had drones that used a nuclear explosion to power a one-shot gamma ray laser]

If they ARE going to take ships by the end, they'd better pay cough up extra. What the hell kind of business practice is that? To build ships basically for free?

>>10239003
>APERTURE SCIENCE IS HUNGRY FOR MORE RESEARCH PROJECTS.

>Experimental technology, can be glitchy
Research further.

Ask scientist for potential research subjects. Give man a bro fist, and a huge mug of ale (we always have barrels of ale in board room, right?)

>>10239003

Pay the 250bil to STFU. We have the money, being on our old time-limit should only be good.

>>10239066
agreed. Lets give R&D a month of a break, then lets have ideas from them for further research.

Though, actually, to have good reputation we could use 1 (one) shipyard to construct warships for UN and ask only for construction prices.

>>10239003
Aw man, you didn't use this >>10238691

>>10239003
>In the middle of a conference, an Aperture scientist suddenly bursts into the room, leaps on the table and does the "early breakthrough" dance before being dragged away by security.
Aww, those guys. See if they can do anything about those alien dialects we discovered. Then buy them something nice, we give them 10bil and tell them to go crazy.

>>10239004
And the original intent of the Portal Carrier concept was to use it as a staging platform for drone UCV that would be sent through from a planetary construction yard to the battlefield. It was expected that some people might be a little uncomfortable giving AI systems complete autonomy, so a human-piloted fighter might be sent through at a ratio of 10~20 drones to 1 human. The ships would need some capability to store on-board UCV's because of their expected interstellar role where they will be beyond the range of our primary construction yard portal facilities.

>>10239003
drones.

>>10239141
The carrier itself could be completely autonomous, or only hold a skeleton crew. To save space and reaction mass while inside a properly equipped system, the human-piloted fighters could be sent back through the portal to a planet-side or orbital staging area.

>>10239093
Agreed. I hate owing anyone money. Plus we then won't have to worry about it later.

This is actually a nice place to end for this week. Nice year number.

's been a blast, thanks for reminding me to do this, see you next Wednesday. 4chan's going buggy on me so I might as well gtfo.

Hope you enjoyed it so far.

I'll be honest, I'm not paying much attention, but could you put funding into making Portal technology a feasible FTL.

Make gate technology, I guess?

We can jump from world to world that we own, but...

Let's put some research into production increases, as it will both help increase our economy as well as the rate we can toss stuff out. Economy will help us increase our research fund so it's a win/win.

>>10239152
Not just drones, but the Portal Carrier and its related Drone Unmanned Combat Space Vehicle.
We're going to need an appropriately Norse name for that.

>>10239196

Would take years and years and trillions of dollars...

But I guess everybody's gotta start somewhere, right?

>>10239196
That's a favourite topic of everyone need to this.

Over long distance, a portal grows unstable.

It would require a heck of a lot of research and a heck of a lot of cash to create a facility that could generate enough power and make such an excellent portal that it could remain stable over lightyears of distance.

>>10239195
Thank you too, man. I wish you could do this more often.

>>10239196
Already been discussed, and rejected multiple times.
Trillions of dollars in research and decades of work just to get the theory and a prototype hashed out.

>>10239003
OK then, comrade, just clarify this for me: We're building 6 warships to the 5,5,10 specification that will be ready 6 years, and then they will go into the ownerships of the UN?

The 720bil was put forward by the UN (essentially), and we just gave them access to our ship yards?

We're going to get paid by the UN to the tune of some 500bil when those pirates are dealt with?

>>10239195
Thanks for running it again, Plasma. See you next week.

>>10239195

Ok, that's ok. Thanks for having us. My trains have started going again and I'm gonna head home and sleep most of the day.

Looking forward to next week already!

>>10239252
You have been given $720b to make 6 warships with. They will be complete by 2156. There are two possible outcomes.
a) The situation is dealt with beforehand and you recieve no additional cash and because everyone collectively paid, the warships go into the hands of the least bias nation - the U.N.
b) The situation is not dealt with and the warships handle it. You keep the warships and you also get the reward cash.

>>10239252
If the pirates will still be there in 6 years then no, they will not go to UN

>>10239248
At this time it isn't worth pursuing.

Later, when we enhance our R*D department, or if we discover some valuable portal technology, or maybe even do something with the Umbra, but not now.

Even then, it will still probably only be to Alpha Centauri, not galaxy wide.

>>10239252
Yeah, that's the deal. Essentially they buy the ships from us to deal with the pirates (720bil). If we prove our designs work good, they give us the bonus (500 bil)

>>10239310
Ah, that was all I was confused about.

Well, what to do what to do...

Guess it would be a shame if the pirates didn't stop, a shame for everyone but us.

I hope these talks were kept secret, if they knew it could be.. unfortunate.

These up on the Archive?

>>10239323
While jumping from one part of galaxy to another would be impossible but if we build interstellar Portal gates, we could set up a network between stars and quickly travel from one point to another ... think like Mass Effect but less advanced (yet)

>>10238888
Anyways, OP. Just because I love doing this kind of math.

20 tons at 0.75c = 9.201x10^20 J

Which is approximately 220,000 megatons of TNT.

Certainly not a planetbuster - the Chicxulub crater was formed by an asteroid that hit the Earth with a force of about 100,000,000 megatons of TNT.

However you could easily ruin someone's day with one of these things. Probably wipe out a significant fraction of the Eastern Seaboard of the United States, for example.

>>10239415
Huh, so we could shoot slugs like that on our enemies? Good to know

Guys, don't forget to archieve this when the archive is back on

>>10239415
That would require it to accelerate to that speed. It's an average of 0.75c. It takes a pretty long distance to accelerate to a value slightly larger than that, which is the maximum speed, then it slows down so it doesn't, you know, obliterate thousands of square metres like you say.

>>10239447
Well, I was estimating it as the spacecraft being 20 tons and traveling at 75% lightspeed.

Presumably the spacecraft is more massive than this, 20 tons is pretty lightweight - the space shuttle, empty, weighs almost 70 metric tons. A better estimate for a spacecraft like in OP's picture would probably be 200-500 metric tons.

>>10239493
Yes, naturally.

Of course if you didn't want to slow down for whatever reason, your spacecraft would make a pretty good weapon of mass destruction.

>>10239474
The request interface is still up, we just won't know if it has worked or not.

I'll stay and watch over the thread for a while, things like this should be archived for posterity.

Mining laser, manipulator arms, some kind of accelerator so I can fling garbage and stuff at things, environment modules to grow food and supply breathable air, and all the engineering and production modules necessary to replicate itself, and any additional kinds of modules I would need.

Travel to the vast unknowns, return with an endless armada of drones.

Oh and add some kind of cloning facility with a huge range of genetic blueprints, with a brainwashing facility to keep tings going in an orderly fashion.

>>10239534
not everybody knows how to request archival

>>10239590
>Oh and add some kind of cloning facility with a huge range of genetic blueprints, with a brainwashing facility to keep tings going in an orderly fashion.

Instead of creating human slaves, why not just create robotic slaves?

I mean you're already bringing along all the necessary parts for assembling a new ship and drones...

>>10239801
That's alright I already have.

It's not to hard, really, you just input the thread number (in this case 10238033), title, a short description, and any tags you had in mind. For tags, if it's a quest it always contains collective game, for quest series it's best to keep the number of tags short, and especially relevant, always use the name as a tag, and preferable the general theme or setting. More importantly, though, the tags need to be constant, so it's normally better to just copy and past those from the previous thread.

>>10239833

Mostly for flavor, you can't really have a proper villain without lots of disposable lackeys. Also handy if you need to create back up bodies or organs. Also the blueprints don't have to be human, other creatures could be handy in a variety of tasks.

So, no one will probably see this, except perhaps in the archives.

The Portal Carrier Concept:
Using the unprecedented possibilities represented by SLINT's control of Portal technology, some of the considerations fundamental to realistic space warfare either are abandoned or altered to the point where they are no longer recognizable.
For example, the coolant systems needed to either store heat or radiate it away can now be tied to a planet-based cooling facility to dump heat when needed. There are still considerations of heat and long-range detection via thermal signatures in relation to the drive systems, but the combat considerations are effectively moot.
The same goes for mass considerations in relations to fuel and ammunition for kinetic-kill weapons and missiles. Portals to planet-side or planet-orbit staging areas allow for 2-way movement of war material to and from the zone of conflict. The portal carrier in space warfare has the advantage of being able to effectively carry a weapon payload (drones and missiles, as well as increased Rate-of-Fire for laser PD platforms) far in excess of what it's size and drive system should be able to handle.
Now, when we can build an airship equipped with a combat portable portal for atmospheric use, then we will have Protoss carriers (essentially a mobile airfield for the fielding of short-range UCAVs and fighters, and anything else that can fit through the portal such as troop transports). When they are grounded, they can be used to quickly build a field base by moving supplies and ground vehicles, as well as personnel, from a central staging area.
I think I have sufficiently explained my position to show that, while снайпер has brought up many valid points concerning space warfare, he is not "Thinking with Portals"®.

>>10241794
So how would you call that all together? Portal auxiliary module could be a good name.

Also, this give me an idea to make troop boarding probes using Portals. Basically, instead of putting people in the probe we put in a portal, when the probe makes contact with enemy ship/station it opens up and troops start pouring in. There could be no limit how many troops one probe can carry that way.

>>10245954
You're waaay late with that idea. We already have a portal gun that opens up a portal inside an enemy ship for boarding.