TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Sci-fi Military Tactics and Strategy

Go To

AFP Since: Mar, 2010
#951: Jul 13th 2014 at 3:57:10 PM

Didn't they remove that feature fairly early in the Shuttle's career? They did a risk assessment and determined it was more likely that the explosive bolts it used would cause an accident, vs the possibility of a situation where the crew would need to punch out.

MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#952: Jul 13th 2014 at 5:10:47 PM

And yet the two times the crew needed it, they didn't have it if it was removed. It's like the old adage surrounding guns and self-defense, tis better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

edited 13th Jul '14 5:11:40 PM by MajorTom

AFP Since: Mar, 2010
#953: Jul 13th 2014 at 5:37:33 PM

True enough, but that's kind of how Risk Assessment works. You can't plan around what will happen, barring prophetic foresight or a Stable Time Loop, you can only plan around what will probably happen. And that assumes you have all the correct information and assumptions (i.e.: Will this other equipment be installed correctly?) to do your analysis to begin with.

TairaMai rollin' on dubs from El Paso Tx Since: Jul, 2011 Relationship Status: Mu
rollin' on dubs
#954: Jul 13th 2014 at 5:40:28 PM

There were ejection seats, the first crews used SR-71 pressure suits and ejection seats. Those were removed because most of the crew is middeck, surrounded by structure. An escape capsule was never fitted. Putting one in was studied, but it would have been too expensive.

Yes, the B-58, F-111 and B-1A used crew capsules. But for the shuttle, explosive bolts were too risky and a capsule added weight. The external fuel tank took thousands of gallons of paint and added too much weight, so the rest of the tanks were unpainted.

For more reading, Space Shuttle abort modes via The Other Wiki.

edited 13th Jul '14 5:41:23 PM by TairaMai

I tried to walk like an Egyptian and now I need to see a Cairo practor....
MattII Since: Sep, 2009
#955: Jul 13th 2014 at 7:09:57 PM

Didn't they remove that feature fairly early in the Shuttle's career? They did a risk assessment and determined it was more likely that the explosive bolts it used would cause an accident, vs the possibility of a situation where the crew would need to punch out.
That and the fact that they could only fit four of them in meant that some of the crew wouldn't make it anyway.

edited 13th Jul '14 7:10:24 PM by MattII

MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#956: Jul 13th 2014 at 8:50:10 PM

Ah so they ran off the old Navy logic, "if everyone can't get off the sinking ship then no one will!"

MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#957: Jul 13th 2014 at 8:56:34 PM

True enough, but that's kind of how Risk Assessment works.

And how many times have Risk Assessment types been found wanting or otherwise very short sighted? Way too many to trust them.

A good risk plan has those little contingencies even if the intention is they'll likely never be used. Better to have and not need and all. Because after all, your risk assessment plan will look extremely stupid if shit goes sideways in the very way you said it wouldn't or was too unlikely to occur.

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#958: Jul 13th 2014 at 9:29:10 PM

The escape pod wouldn't have helped either Columbia or Challenger. It is very unlikely any of them would have been saved. You have to know you need to escape before you can do it. The folks on Challenger had no clue they were about to blow up. The Columbia had a under two minutes from that thermal tile falling off to total loss of control and break up of the shuttle.

Who watches the watchmen?
AFP Since: Mar, 2010
#959: Jul 13th 2014 at 9:53:13 PM

A giant parachute would be very useful in the event that an airplane suffers an engine failure. An extra set of backup engines probably even more useful. After a certain point, excessive contingency measures become far more of a hindrance than any practical benefit they serve. Following the engines example: Note that most modern airliners have gone from four engines (more redundancy) to two engines (less complexity and thus fewer parts to break, not to mention lower costs).

Risk Assessment balances the risk of doing something with the benefit of pulling it off and the cost of making that activity safe (or skipping it entirely). Most of the time it works just fine because by definition you never hear about something succeeding thanks to proper risk assessment. It's like how nobody talks about how engineers did a brilliant job properly laying a foundation and building an apartment complex, that's just the assumed norm, versus a failure if it collapses under its own weight.

edited 13th Jul '14 9:54:03 PM by AFP

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#960: Jul 13th 2014 at 11:11:27 PM

Parachute for a plane you say?

Who watches the watchmen?
AFP Since: Mar, 2010
#961: Jul 13th 2014 at 11:32:40 PM

Saw that one coming even before I finished typing that lol

Now, I want to see one of those that will safely lower an Airbus A340 to the surface. [lol]

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#962: Jul 14th 2014 at 1:00:12 AM

That would be an impressive bit of kit.

Who watches the watchmen?
AFP Since: Mar, 2010
#963: Jul 14th 2014 at 1:42:53 AM

Waitwaitwaitwaitwait I've GOT IT. In the event of a loss of engines (or wings, whatever) an emergency blimp will deploy automatically. Even though helium will be flowing to the envelope, the blimp may not inflate.

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#964: Jul 14th 2014 at 11:42:36 AM

Not sure about that one. Maybe a helium inflated ballut sort of a parachute/balloon hybrid. Anything that can suddenly help alleviate the force of the craft smacking into the ground could be useful.

edited 14th Jul '14 11:43:06 AM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?
AFP Since: Mar, 2010
#965: Jul 14th 2014 at 2:56:38 PM

Compressed hydrogen tanks will inflate the skin of the airplane to enact an Emergency Transformation into a Zeppelin. Remember, this is a no smoking flight.

MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#966: Jul 14th 2014 at 6:53:00 PM

^ No flying during thunderstorms either.

Belisaurius Since: Feb, 2010
#967: Jul 15th 2014 at 9:36:34 AM

Naturally, all combustion reactions must be removed as the high heat could ignite the hydrogen.

Flanker66 Dreams of Revenge from 30,000 feet and climbing Since: Nov, 2009 Relationship Status: You can be my wingman any time
Dreams of Revenge
#968: Jul 16th 2014 at 2:14:34 PM

As amusing as this derail is, it's still a derail. tongue Can we get back on track?

Locking you up on radar since '09
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#969: Jul 16th 2014 at 4:05:18 PM

What do you guys think of the "landing brick" basically a hardened descent vehicle with limited deceleration. They basically scream in through atmo and via limited deceleration and/or impact/shock mitigating tech smack into the ground and then open up to deploy units.

You see it various sci-fi. Something comes down there is a blast and then something comes out of a container and crawls out of the craterthen begins raising hell. Even some of the Dune books have examples of it.

edited 16th Jul '14 4:13:54 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#970: Jul 16th 2014 at 4:10:35 PM

I could see it being useful for landing heavy mechanized forces such as tanks, mecha and whatnot. Infantry on the other hand, that brick better be able to go back up for it to be worth it.

Unless that infantry "brick" is one-manned.

edited 16th Jul '14 4:11:13 PM by MajorTom

AFP Since: Mar, 2010
#971: Jul 16th 2014 at 10:26:54 PM

If you've got the inertial dampening to handle hundreds-of-gs maneuvers in space combat (as many sci-fi ships seem to have), I figure the forces involved in a terrain-assisted deceleration should be easy enough. Plus, it can make for a spectacular entrance, always great for those morale effects.

And why go for the cliche perpendicular impact? I say come in at a low AOA and skip across the landscape like a skipping stone of mayhem and destruction.

MattII Since: Sep, 2009
#972: Jul 17th 2014 at 12:52:01 AM

In terms of the 'brick', rapid descent is all fine and good, but it will still take several minutes to get down, mostly because the last 5km or so will really slow you down, and buffet you about if you try to go too fast.

AFP Since: Mar, 2010
TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#974: Jul 17th 2014 at 4:17:51 AM

Okay pretty simple.

Enemy planet is occupied by 8 million troops.

Humans are technologically superior. (Like F-22 going up against a F-4 gap)

Would eight million be enough to liberate or do I need a 2:1 ratio to end the battle (not war) as swiftly as possible.

New Survey coming this weekend!
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#975: Jul 17th 2014 at 5:26:43 AM

Ideally you'd want even more. 3:1 or better is the preferred ratio for head on attacks.

However you can do with even a paltry 1:1 ratio provided you have no intention of lining your guys up against theirs Revolutionary War style. Localized outnumbering can prove a lot more practical than digging up millions of more troopers to hit everywhere on the planet all at once.


Total posts: 12,295
Top