Ship Design Philosophy

[Condottiere]

I'm going for standard sized hull modules.

Breakaways aren't the right solution, though maybe for a command module.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Jump Drive Breakdown

Thirty five tonne jump drive, default:

. Overhead
.. five tonnes
.. 7.5 megacredits
.. technological level nine

. Jump core
.. twenty four tonnes
.. 27 megacredits
.. 1'200 parsec tonnes
.. technological level nine upwards

. Capacitors
.. six tonnes
.. 18 megacredits
.. three hundred energy points
.. technological level nine


Uranus Class

Thirty five tonne jump drive, default budget/enlarged:

. Overhead
.. six and a quarter tonnes
.. 5.625 megacredits
.. technological level nine

. Jump core
.. twenty three tonnes
.. 19.40625 megacredits
.. 760 parsec tonnes
.. technological level nine upwards

. Capacitors
.. 5.75 tonne
.. 12.9375 megacredits
.. 239.5833333333333 energy points
.. technological level nine

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Jump Drive Breakdown and the Uranus Class

Why thirty five tonnes?

It equals one engineer exactly.

I've been considering whether the five tonne overhead contains any capacitors, and rereading black globes, it's clear it does.

At lower tonnages, this probably helps as a form of surge control, becomes increasingly irrelevant at large tonnages.

It then occurred to me that dropping capacitors from the overhead brings the overhead back to five tonnes for enlarged variants of the same sized engines, important if you make them modular.

Also, cheaper.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Engineering and Power Plants

Thirty five tonne early fusion power plant:

. Default
.. thirty five tonnes
.. three hundred fifty energy points
.. seventeen and a half megacredits
.. technological level eight

. Budget, enlarged
.. 43.75 tonnes
.. three hundred fifty energy points
.. 13.125 megacredits
.. technological level eight

. Budget, enlarged
.. thirty five tonnes
.. 280 energy points
.. 10.5 megacredits
.. technological level eight

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Engineering and Jump Zero Drives

It's something GURPS came up with on their own, I think.

Porting it to Mongoose would assume it being an Early Prototype, with two disadvantages, plus double volume and a thousand percent price tag.

One disadvantage would have to be reduced range, or since it's already by default twice the volume, possibly both disadvantages have to do with reduced range, ending up with a quarter parsec limit.

One point disadvantage would be minusing off half a parsec from range.

Two point disadvantage would be minusing off three quarters of a parsec from range.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Engineering and Power Plants

Thirty five tonne early fusion power plant:

. Default
.. thirty five tonnes
.. three hundred fifty energy points
.. one eighth tonne hydrogen fuel daily consumption
.. seventeen and a half megacredits
.. technological level eight

. Budget, enlarged
.. 43.75 tonnes
.. three hundred fifty energy points
.. 0.125 tonne hydrogen fuel consumption per day
.. 13.125 megacredits
.. technological level eight

. Budget, enlarged
.. thirty five tonnes
.. 280 energy points
.. 0.125 tonne hydrogen fuel consumption per day
.. 10.5 megacredits
.. technological level eight


. Default
.. One hundred five tonnes
.. one thousand fifty energy points
.. three eighths tonne hydrogen fuel daily consumption
.. fifty two and a half megacredits
.. technological level eight

. Budget, enlarged
.. 131.25 tonnes
.. one thousand fifty energy points
.. 0.46875 tonne hydrogen fuel consumption per day
.. 39.375 megacredits
.. technological level eight

. Budget, enlarged
.. one hundred five tonnes
.. 840 energy points
.. 0.375 tonne hydrogen fuel consumption per day
.. 31.5 megacredits
.. technological level eight


Why one hundred and five tonnes?

Job rationalization at five kay tonne hull margins, possibly earlier.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Jump Drive Breakdown


One hundred five tonner

. Overhead
.. five tonnes
... capacitors
.... one tonne
.... three megacredits
.... fifty energy points
.. 4.5 megacredits
.. total 7.5 megacredits
.. technological level nine

. Jump core
.. eighty tonnes
.. 90 megacredits
.. 4'000 parsec tonnes
.. technological level nine upwards

. Capacitors
.. twenty tonnes
.. 60 megacredits
.. one thousand energy points
.. technological level nine

 

[Condottiere]

Musk explains why SpaceX prefers clusters of small engines
"It’s sort of like the way modern computer systems are set up."

ERIC BERGER - 2/8/2018, 3:20 PM

Enlarge / The Falcon Heavy rocket proved that 27 engines can fly together and not go all explode-y.

One of the most striking aspects of this week's launch of the Falcon Heavy rocket is the number of engines the triple-core booster used to reach orbit. Each of the cores had nine Merlin rocket engines, making for a total of 27 engines.

Prior to this launch, no rocket had ever successfully ascended into orbit with more than nine engines—a feat accomplished previously by SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket and Rocket Lab's Electron rocket. (The Russian Soyuz rocket has five engines, each of which has six thrust chambers.)

This may be the moment SpaceX opened the cosmos to the masses
Launching a rocket with 27 engines, therefore, represents a notable step forward in rocket complexity. It is all the more so, considering the Soviet N-1 rocket. Four times, from 1969 to 1972, the Russians attempted to launch their titanic “Moon rocket,” and it failed spectacularly each time. Its 30 engines were just too many to fire, throttle, and steer at the same time.

During an interview with SpaceX founder Elon Musk this week prior to launch, Ars asked Musk if the history of the N-1 rocket concerned him. "No," he replied. "I think with the N-1 failure it was mostly avionics failure. They had engine to engine fire issues." Five decades later, SpaceX could do better.

Like a computer

The company's development of the Falcon 9 rocket, with nine engines, had given Musk confidence that SpaceX could scale up to 27 engines in flight, and he believed this was a better overall solution for the thrust needed to escape Earth's gravity. To explain why, the former computer scientist used a computer metaphor.

"It’s sort of like the way modern computer systems are set up," Musk said. "With Google or Amazon they have large numbers of small computers, such that if one of the computers goes down it doesn’t really affect your use of Google or Amazon. That’s different from the old model of the mainframe approach, when you have one big mainframe and if it goes down, the whole system goes down."

For computers, Musk said, using large numbers of small computers ends up being a more efficient, smarter, and faster approach than using a few larger, more powerful computers. So it was with rocket engines. "It’s better to use a large number of small engines," Musk said. With the Falcon Heavy rocket, he added, up to half a dozen engines could fail and the rocket would still make it to orbit.

The flight of the Falcon Heavy likely bodes well for SpaceX's next rocket, the much larger Big Falcon Rocket (or BFR), now being designed at the company's Hawthorne, California-based headquarters. This booster will use 31 engines, four more than the Falcon Heavy. But it will also use larger, more powerful engines. The proposed Raptor engine has 380,000 pounds of thrust at sea level, compared to 190,000 pounds of thrust for the Merlin 1-D engine.

“It gives me a lot of faith for our next architecture," Musk said Tuesday night, after the Falcon Heavy's launch. "It gives me confidence that BFR is really quite workable.”

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/musks-inspiration-for-27-engines-modern-computer-clusters/?comments=1

 

[Condottiere]

How do spacecraft navigate in space ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAnxt1YPWbk

How do spacecraft navigate in space over billions of kilometers and with split second timing during missions that last for years or decades. Here we look at how its done and the underlying principles that make it all possible.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceports

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmLWxptFFYc

We return to the Upward Bound Series to look at spaceports, giant structures dwarfing the modern International Space Station, with a focus on the Gateway Spaceport design.

Modular construction.

Planetary acclimatization.

 

[Condottiere]

They're Building a REAL Nuclear Fusion Reactor! - Holy S#!T

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPpYQFtyO98

We tour General Fusions insanely high tech nuclear fusion research facility!

Early fusion.

Though rather steampunky.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Power Plant

The fierce race for fusion power

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQzwCDuA394

In nuclear fusion may lie the key to many of the world's energy problems. CBC's Frédéric Zalac sizes up some of the players that are working hard to master it, including General Fusion — a small Canadian company based out of a Burnaby, B.C. warehouse.


Fusion Power Explained – Future or Failure

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQzwCDuA394

How does Fusion Energy work and is it a good idea?


Magnetic bottle to insulate the fusion reaction, gravitic press to crush the particles together and ignite the reaction.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Contractor Class Commercial Cruiser

Using the standard C type spherical hull, the nineteen hundred ninety nine tonne has the classic tripod permanent landing gear.

Performance is one point four gees, generated by a budgetted thirty five tonne manoeuvre drive module, and a one hundred five tonne jump drive allows a two parsec range.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Large Smallcraft and Cockpits

Apparently, the Arladu class utility boat from the Great Rift is sixty tonnes volume and has a double cockpit.

So, either it was an oversight by the writer, or it's an extension of the rules.

As such, you could have a ninety nine tonne shuttle with a double, possibly single, cockpit. Important, from a cost accounting perspective.

The interesting aspect is if you install a pop up turret and suddenly have a jump capable volume.

If that was viable, add an additional one tonne workstation for astronavigation.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Light Fighters

Light fighters are fighter aircraft towards the low end of the practical range of weight, cost, and complexity over which fighters are fielded. The term lightweight fighter is more commonly used in the modern literature, and by example tends to imply somewhat more capable aircraft than light fighters at the lower practical ranges, but the terms overlap and are sometimes used interchangeably.[a][b.] Whatever term is used, the concept is to be on the generally lower half of the practical range, but still with carefully selected competitive features, in order to project highly effective force per unit of budget via an efficient design.[1][c]
As well-designed lightweight fighters have proven able to match or beat heavier aircraft plane-for-plane for many missions,[2][3][4][5] and to significantly excel them in budgetary efficiency,[6] light/lightweight fighters have proven to be a strategically valuable concept.[7] Attempting to scale this efficiency to still lower cost, some manufacturers have in recent years adopted the term “light fighter” to also refer to light primarily air-to-ground attack aircraft, some of which are modified trainer designs.
A key design goal of light/lightweight fighter design is to satisfy standard air-to-air fighter effectiveness requirements. These criteria, in order of importance, are the ability to benefit from the element of surprise, to have numerical superiority in the air, to have superior maneuverability, and to possess suitable weapon systems effectiveness.[8][9][10][11][12] Light fighters typically achieve a surprise advantage over larger aircraft due to smaller visual and radar signatures, which is important since in the majority of air-to-air kills, the element of surprise is dominant.[13][14][15] Their comparative lower cost and higher reliability also allows for greater numbers per budget.[16] Finally, while a single engine light fighter would typically only carry about half the weapons load of a heavy twin engine fighter, its surprise and maneuverability advantages often allow it to gain positional advantage to make better use of those weapons.
A requirement for small and therefore low cost fighters first arose in the period between World War I and World War II. Examples include several RAF interceptor designs from the interwar era and French "Jockey" aircraft of the immediate pre-World War II. None of these very light fighters enjoyed success into World War II, as they were too hampered in performance. Similar to the meaning of lightweight fighter today, during World War II the term “small fighter” was used to describe a single engine aircraft of competitive performance, range, and armament load, but with no unnecessary weight and cost.[17]
After World War II fighter design moved into the jet era, and many jet fighters basically followed the successful World War II formula of highly efficient mostly single engine designs that tended to be about half the weight and cost of twin engine heavy fighters. Prominent early examples include the English Folland Gnat, the American F-86 Sabre and Northrop F-5, the Soviet Mikoyan MiG-15 and Mikoyan MiG-21, the French Mirage III, and the Swedish Saab Draken. More modern lightweight fighters with competitive air-to-air capability (supersonic aircraft with afterburning engines and modern missile armament) include the American F-16 Fighting Falcon, Swedish JAS 39 Gripen, Indian HAL Tejas, Korean FA-50, Japanese Mitsubishi F-2, Chinese Chengdu J-10, and Chinese CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder. The high practical and budgetary effectiveness of modern light fighters for many missions is why the US Air Force adopted both the F-15 Eagle and F-16 in a "hi/lo" strategy of both an outstanding but expensive heavy fighter and a lower cost but also outstanding lightweight fighter.[18] The investment to maintain a competitive modern lightweight fighter air force is approximately $90M to $130M (2013 dollars) per plane over a 20-year service life, which is approximately half the cost of heavy fighters,[d] so understanding fighter aircraft design trade-offs and combat effectiveness is of national level strategic importance.

Is there surprise in space?

My criteria would be:

1. Size

2. Price

3. Kreis

4. Fries

5. Wise


1. Size is a question of volume, which affects visibility, maneuverability and price. The rules don't provide a default hull below ten tonnes, and only from fifty tonnes onwards, is size an issue to targetting.

2. Price seems more effected by electronics than size and scaleability.

3. Manoeuvrability isn't effected until fifty tonnes.

4. Is one weapon slot enough? You get two by thirty five tonnes.

5. This issue always crops up when arguing about the cost of the Lightninged Too; undoubtedly the case if you equip it with bleeding edge electronics and sensors in the early prototype stage, which shouldn't be the case for light fighters.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Aircraft are a poor analogy for space fighters.

In a universe where the capital ships are just as fast and can carry much more effective weaponry, more of it, armour, more of it, better sensors etc then you have to careful what you call a fighter.

Fighters in MgT have special rules to make them effective, these special rules being right out of the George Lucas school of advanced physics rather than any the perfectly adequate lasw of movement described by Sir Isaac. Traveller, and the OTU in particular, has always gone with newtonian movement rather than space fighters that can bank and swoop, pull handbrake turns, and fly around capital ships as if the ships are standing still.

Watch The Expanse rather than Star Wars.

 

[Condottiere]

Concepts remains the same.

The basic idea comes from diminishing returns, by using up half the resources for a slightly better example, to five or even ten times less expensive, and making up the qualitative difference with quantity.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Light Fighter

Effectiveness advantages[edit]
The modern view of light/lightweight fighters is as a capable weapon intended to satisfy the main criteria of air-to-air combat effectiveness,[8][9][10][11][12] which in order of importance, are:
1. Achieving superiority in the element of surprise, to be aware of the enemy before they are aware of you. In past combats, surprise advantage has been mostly based upon small visual and radar signatures, and having good visibility out of the cockpit. Surprise is a significant advantage, since historically in about 80% of air-to-air kills, the victim was unaware of the attacker until too late.[13][19]
As the former editor of 'The Topgun Journal', the author asked hundreds of pilots over a six-year period what single advantage they would like to have, that is, longer-range missiles, more guns, better maneuverability, etc. To a pilot they all said 'The first sighting.'
James Stevenson, The Pentagon Paradox.[20]
Small fighters like the F-5 with a planform area of about 300 square feet (28 m2) or the F-16 at about 400 square feet (37 m2), compared to about 1,050 square feet (98 m2) for the F-15,[21] have a much lower visual profile. The small fighter is typically invisible to opposing pilots beyond about 4 miles (6.4 km), whereas a larger fighter such as the F-15 is visible to about 7 miles (11 km).[22] This is a non-linear advantage to the light fighter at similar altitude and more if aircraft at different altitudes. Additionally, smaller targets take longer to visually acquire even if they are visible.[23] These two factors together give the light fighter pilot much better statistical odds of seeing the heavy fighter first and setting up a decisive first shot.[24] Once the small fighter sees and turns towards the opponent its very small frontal area reduces maximum visual detection range to about 2 to 2.5 miles (3.2 to 4.0 km).[14][25]
Given similar technology, smaller fighters typically have about two thirds the radar range against the same target as heavy fighters.[e] However, this cannot be counted upon to give the large fighter a winning advantage, as larger fighters with typical radar cross sectional area of about 10 square metres (110 sq ft) are detectable by a given radar at about 50% farther range than the 2 to 3 square metres (22 to 32 sq ft) cross section of the light fighter.[26] This approximately balances these trade-offs, and can sometimes favor the lightweight fighter. For example, from the front the F-15 actually presents about 20 square metres (220 sq ft) radar cross sectional area,[27] and has been typically defeated by opposing F-16 forces not only in close dogfighting combat, but also in extensive Beyond Visual Range (BVR) trials.[3][28] Also, airborne fighter radars are limited: their coverage is only to the front, and are far from perfect in detecting enemy aircraft. Although radar was extensively used by the United States in the Vietnam War, only 18% of North Vietnamese fighters were first detected by radar, and only 3% by radar on fighter aircraft.[29] The other 82% were visually acquired.[30]
The modern trend to stealth aircraft is an attempt to maximize surprise in an era when Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missiles are becoming more effective than the quite low effectiveness BVR has had in the past.[31]
2. To have numerical superiority in the air, which implies the need for lower procurement cost, lower maintenance cost, and higher reliability. Not even taking into account the sometimes superior combat capability of lighter aircraft based on surprise and maneuverability, the pure numbers issue of lower cost and higher reliability (higher sortie rates) also tends to favor light fighters. It is a basic outcome of Lanchester's laws, or the salvo combat model, that a larger number of less-sophisticated units will tend to be successful over a smaller number of more advanced ones; the damage dealt is based on the square of the number of units firing, while the quality of those units has only a linear effect on the outcome. This non-linear relationship favors the light and lightweight fighter.[32]
Additionally, as pilot capability is actually the top consideration in maximizing total effectiveness of the pilot-aircraft system,[f] the lower purchase and operational cost of light fighters permits more training, thus delivering more effective pilots.[33] For example, as of 2013, total heavy F-15C operating cost is reported at US$41,900 per hour, and light F-16C cost at US$22,500 per hour.[34]
3. To have superior maneuverability, which in maneuvering combat allows getting into superior position to fire and score the kill. [35][36][37][38][39] This is a function of achieving lower wing loading, higher thrust to weight ratio, and superior aerodynamics.[40][41][42] This is sometimes described colloquially as “wrapping the smallest possible airframe around the most powerful available engine.”[43] Professional analysis through 4th generation fighters shows that among heavier fighters only the F-15 has been generally competitive with lighter fighters, and its maneuvering performance is exceeded by several lighter fighters such as the F-16.[44][45] Light fighters have no inherent aerodynamic advantage for speed and range, but when designed to be as simple as possible they do tend to have lower wing loading and higher thrust to weight ratio.[46] Additionally, smaller fighters are lower in inertia, allowing a faster transient response in maneuvering combat.[47]
4. Weapon systems effectiveness.[48][49][50] This area is one where the light fighter can be at a disadvantage, since the combat load of a single engine light fighter is typically about half of a twin engine heavy fighter. However, modern single engine light fighters such as the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon and the Saab JAS 39 Gripen generally carry similar cannon and air-to-air missile fighter weapons as heavier fighters. Actual aerial combat in the modern era is of short duration, typically about two minutes,[51] and as only a small fraction of this is spent actually firing, modest weapons load outs are generally effective. The ideal weapons load for a modern fighter is considered to be an internal gun and two to four guided missiles,[52] a load that modern light fighters are fully capable of while maintaining high agility. For example, the JAS 39 Gripen, despite being the lightest major fighter in current production, carries a combat load of an 27mm cannon and up to six air-to-air missiles of the same types as carried by heavy fighters. Additionally, combat experience shows that weapons systems "effectiveness" has not been dominated by the amount of weaponry or "load out", but by the ability to achieve split second kills when in position to do so.[53][54][55]

Concept summary[edit]
Superior technology has often been quoted as a strong factor favoring the heavy fighter. The specific argument usually presented is that heavy fighters have superior radar range and longer range BVR missiles that take advantage of that range. This radar range advantage is one of the major reasons for the existence of the modern heavy fighter, but it has not turned out to be a significant advantage in air combat history to date for several reasons. A major reason has been because long range BVR missile shots have often been unusable, and often unreliable when they could be taken. The weight of the larger missiles also reduces performance and range needed to get in position to fire. Due to these factors, between 1958 and 1982 in five wars there were 2,014 missile firings by fighter pilots engaged in air-to-air combat in five wars, but there were only four beyond-visual-range kills.[56]
The more general and often misunderstood argument for more technology that has been historically assumed to favor heavy fighters is not just better radar but better systems support for the fighter pilot in other ways as well. Examples include all weather capability, precise electronic navigation, electronic counter-measures, data-linking for improved information awareness, and automation to lighten pilot workload and keep the pilot focused on tasks essential to combat.[57] This was a compelling argument, as the greatest factor in the effectiveness of a fighter plane has always been the pilot. Quoting a prominent reference, "Throughout the history of air combat, a few outstanding fighter pilots, typically less than five percent of the whole, have run up large scores at the expense of their less gifted brethren. The numerical imbalance was such that a large number of high scorers was needed. The quest was on to turn each fighter pilot into an ace, and technology seemed the easiest, and the only way to achieve it. This was the idea underlying the first two American superfighters; the F-14 Tomcat and the F-15 Eagle.”[58]
While the technology advantage for heavy fighters that better supported the pilot may well have been a valid point in the 1970s (when the F-14 and F-15 first entered service), this advantage has not been maintained over time. Engine performance improvements have improved load carry capability,[g] and with more compact electronics, the lightweight fighter has, from the 1980s onwards, had similar pilot enhancing technical features.[59][60][61] The lightweight fighter carries equally effective weapons including BVR missiles, and has similar combat range and persistence. The modern lightweight fighter achieves these competitive features while still maintaining the classic advantages of better surprise, numbers, and maneuverability. Thus, the lightweight fighter natural advantages have remained in force despite the addition of more technology to air combat.[60]
Due to their lower costs, modern light fighters equip the air forces of many smaller nations. However, as budgets have limits for all nations, the optimum selection of fighter aircraft weight, complexity, and cost is an important strategic issue even for wealthy nations. The budgetary and strategic significance of light fighters is illustrated by the defense investment at stake. As an example where well referenced data is available, though numerous trial and combat references consider the lightweight F-16 to be as good or better on a per plane as the excellent but expensive F-15,[62] [63] fielding and maintaining a light fighter force based on the F-16 is approximately half the cost of the same number of F-15’s. The US Air Force reports the total loaded cost per hour (as of 2013) of operating the F-16 to be ~US$22,500 per hour.[34] Numerous authoritative sources report that it takes about 200 to 400 flight hours per year to maintain fighter pilot proficiency.[h][64]


It becomes a question of costs:

1. Acquisition

2. Operating

3. Human resources

4. Infrastructure


You can buy a more expensive variant, but know that the operating costs, and nowadays, service life extension programmes whether by shrinking components, or more likely, enough slack in the airframe for improved electronics, instead of buying a new aircraft to replace it.

A smaller size would allow less factory space and hangar area, meaning more could be produced or squeezed into a given volume, which is an issue in Traveller spaceships.

Then, how many personnel would be needed to crew the vessel, and how many to maintain it.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Light Fighters

Future of light fighters[edit]
The issue of where a fighter is best positioned on the weight, cost, and complexity curve is still a contentious issue.[127][128][129] Stealth technology (airframe and engine design that strongly reduce radar and heat signatures) seeks to emphasize the most important feature of fighter effectiveness, the element of surprise.[130] So far it has been featured only on heavier and more expensive fighters, specifically the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II. These fighters are not only stealthy, but also have information or combat awareness advantages due to active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars, and data linking for external cuing of enemy position and friendly force status. Their combination of near invisibility, superior combat awareness, networking, and reliable Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missiles, enables them to get deep inside the enemy's OODA loop and destroy enemy fighters before their pilots are even aware of the threat.
However, due to Lanchester's laws, such superiority on a unit basis does not always translate to winning wars. For example, late in WWII the greatly superior German Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter, flown by the finest pilots Germany had left, many of them very high scoring aces with kill counts far in excess of Allied pilots, in its relatively small numbers suffered heavy losses and was unable to fundamentally alter the air war over Germany.[131] This could be a harbinger of things to come if a greatly numerically inferior force of expensive stealth heavy fighters ever enters into mass combat against a larger force of lower cost but well designed light to middleweight fighters that are competently flown and led.[132]
Fighter drones (see Unmanned combat aerial vehicle) are a likely future development, driven by the same tactical and cost effectiveness principles of light fighters.[133][134] If their software allows them to match or excel the most skilled of human fighter pilots, they may well become the most effective type of fighter aircraft. The advantages of unmanned fighters would include not only cost and numbers, but the fact that their software based "pilot" does not require years of training, is always at the same peak effectiveness for each aircraft (unlike the human pilot case where the top 5% of pilots have historically scored about 50% of all kills[135]), is not physiologically limited, and does not have a life to lose if the aircraft is lost in combat.[136] Of these factors the elimination of the variation in pilot skill, replaced with a fast acting artificial intelligence that makes very few tactical mistakes, is probably the most significant in terms of combat effectiveness. If every software pilot is "ace caliber" with a decision and reaction time measured in milliseconds, this automation of air combat could improve total force effectiveness by an order of magnitude or more. Though there is cultural resistance to replacement of human fighter pilots[137] and also concerns about entrusting life and death decisions to robot software, the military effectiveness advantages are so compelling that unless restricted by treaty they are almost certain to eventually be implemented.[138][139]


So, why didn't the TIE Fighters finish off the X-Wings?

 

[Sigtrygg]

Because that's what it said in the script.

Star Wars is an even worse analogy for space combat than aircraft in space... oh, wait.

1. Traveller ship combat occurs at ranges of hundreds to thousands of km
2. With one notable exception (and I don't mean MgT) every previous version of Traveller has included vector movement (even Starter Edition range band movement maintains a psudo-vector)
3. Capital ships are just as fast as smallcraft.