How fiesable would it be...

[Crossroads Inc.]

...to stuff a fleet of ships inside in asteroid and send them somewhere all at once, rather then send each ship individually to a far away destination?

Maybe I should explain...

Lets say you have a non FTL Civilization that wants to attack someone 4Ly. They have a large, oh, say 2mile long, 1/2 mile wide asteroid hollowed out and ready to be converted into a spaceship. Would it be easier to spend the massive resources to do this? Or spend them making each ship in it's fleet able to independently travel the 4LY rather then do it all at once?

You know, just something I've been thinking about.

[Lord Zentei]

Cost to send one ship = A
Number of ships = B
Cost to send asteroid = C

Plan 1 (send ships individually): total cost = A¤B

Plan 2 (send ships inside huge asteroid): total cost = A¤B + C

Plus the chances of a calamity destroying your fleet become that much greater if you put all your eggs in one basket, as it were.

[Shroom Man 777]

It'd be neat though as some kind of Trojan Horse thing.

[AMX]

And it could make inter-ship travel much simpler. No need to have the ships dock or send shuttles, thereby expending propellant and creating emissions that could be spotted. Just walk/climb/drive over to the other ship.

Especially useful if your actual warships are not self-sufficient (where self-sufficiency means "lots of bulk that's useless in battle"), but rely on separate supply vehicles.

[General Zod]

er. just one thing. what would the point be behind attacking a civilization that you can't interact with physically except maybe once every couple hundred years, at the absolute best? (admittedly my travel times for stl are probably vastly off).

[Crossroads Inc.]

er. just one thing. what would the point be behind attacking a civilization that you can't interact with physically except maybe once every couple hundred years, at the absolute best? (admittedly my travel times for stl are probably vastly off).

Ah! Glad you asked that, well, in this case, the time isn't a few hundred years. The 4LY trip will take just about 20years. Second off, It would be more to colonize then to conqure. The Race in question sending out the ships is doing so to lay the ground work for a Colony ship coming 2 years after the first ship does.

[General Zod]

er. just one thing. what would the point be behind attacking a civilization that you can't interact with physically except maybe once every couple hundred years, at the absolute best? (admittedly my travel times for stl are probably vastly off).

Ah! Glad you asked that, well, in this case, the time isn't a few hundred years. The 4LY trip will take just about 20years. Second off, It would be more to colonize then to conqure. The Race in question sending out the ships is doing so to lay the ground work for a Colony ship coming 2 years after the first ship does.

is there means of communicating with said ships reliably after/before it gets there? otherwise they might simply be forgotten except by a few agencies and such.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Nope. At least not a FTL communication system. The point behind this is that the whole operation is being carried out by, StarWars standards, is a horribly primative Civilization. The people leaving expect thier sons and daughters to be the ones to actually settle the new world. The people on the home world may not expect to hear back from them for 50, 80 years. It doesn't mean they would be forgotton, but given max travel speed is a weak .22LS, theres not much to be done once it's launched.

[wolveraptor]

It'd probably be a race with a different psychology than our own. Not many humans would be willing to uproot and travel to a planet that they wouldn't even live to see, aside from the destitute, and they aren't likely to be viable candidates anyways.

[Wicked Pilot]

I cannot see the advantage of traveling in a hollowed out asteroid. For one you lose stealth, and two you're having to drag around millions of tons of useless rock.

[Chmee]

It'd probably be a race with a different psychology than our own. Not many humans would be willing to uproot and travel to a planet that they wouldn't even live to see, aside from the destitute, and they aren't likely to be viable candidates anyways.

There's a pretty interesting take on the whole 'Generation Ship' concept in Alastair Reynolds' Chasm City ... a whole subplot involves the growth of a child on a Generation Ship and how his goals are so very different from those of the people who launched the ship by the time he gets there.

[The Third Man]

If your warships are small jet-fighter-style affairs, full of weapons but short on creature comforts for a four-year journey, then a carrier-based approach makes sense. An asteroid might be a cheap way to build such a carrier if this is the case.

Also depends on how you intent to shield against radiation and particle impacts at relativistic velocities, the asteroid might be handy if your warships are lightweight, thin-skinned and unshielded.

On the other hand, if your warships are big, shielded and have a drive technology that is equally at home providing low acceleration to high velocity for interstellar travel, and high acceleration to lesser velocities for space combat, then don't bother with the asteroid-carrier; in this case you could achieve the benefits by simply tethering or bolting the warships together.

[wolveraptor]

I cannot see the advantage of traveling in a hollowed out asteroid. For one you lose stealth, and two you're having to drag around millions of tons of useless rock.

You lose stealth? Who would suspect an army hidden inside an asteroid? What it you shut down all systems and put all crewmembers into cryo-genic sleep, while the asteroid inexorably hurtled towards the destination. No external scanning would reveal anything.

Furthermore, the the extra tonnage of the asteroid is only a problem when one is trying to accelerate. Inertia will easily keep the 'roid moving. This is a virtual vacuum, after all, and near-weightless at that.

Also, when you were about to arrive, you could quickly exit the asteroid, and let it hurtle into the enemy planet, thus effectively bombarding them before you fired a shot. Then you could proceed to fight the weakened, surprised enemy.

[Crossroads Inc.]

It'd probably be a race with a different psychology than our own. Not many humans would be willing to uproot and travel to a planet that they wouldn't even live to see, aside from the destitute, and they aren't likely to be viable candidates anyways.

Well, actually the society in question is a World Wide Dictatorial Regime. Basically cross the leadership and Iron fist of Stalin with the efficacy and mobilization of the Nazi's, and that’s what you would get. So getting 'volunteers' to do this really wouldn't be an issue.

I cannot see the advantage of traveling in a hollowed out asteroid. For one you lose stealth, and two you're having to drag around millions of tons of useless rock.

Stealth really isn’t an issue, the power that will eventually engage them is just as ‘advanced’ as they are, IE, no FTL

Also depends on how you intent to shield against radiation and particle impacts at relativistic velocities, the asteroid might be handy if your warships are lightweight, thin-skinned and unshielded.

This was another thing I probably should have mentioned. The ‘shields’ of the ships are quite primitive. At best they are only useful for screening out radiation, and Cosmic Rays. The Asteroid would basically provide protection while travelling 20% LS. Also it is meant to act as a Base of Operations upon arrival.

The ships in question are big, about the size of Modern Carriers and destroyers. But there are geared purly for war, like a Sub, little space for anything extra, IE, facilities for people to live and reproduce for 20 years.

[wolveraptor]

It'd probably be a race with a different psychology than our own. Not many humans would be willing to uproot and travel to a planet that they wouldn't even live to see, aside from the destitute, and they aren't likely to be viable candidates anyways.

Well, actually the society in question is a World Wide Dictatorial Regime. Basically cross the leadership and Iron fist of Stalin with the efficacy and mobilization of the Nazi's, and that’s what you would get. So getting 'volunteers' to do this really wouldn't be an issue

And what makes you think that once these colonizers escape the oppressive government, they'll continue their subservience? They'll be free, alone on an uncharted planet (unless it's laden with unfriendlies). Free.

[Wicked Pilot]

You lose stealth? Who would suspect an army hidden inside an asteroid?

If you're at war with someone then yes you suspect everything. When some large unknown object enters your solar system you investigate. And when the volume and radiation of that object doesn't match with natural space phenonom you take notice. Starships at least can be built to be stealthy.

Furthermore, the the extra tonnage of the asteroid is only a problem when one is trying to accelerate.

It's only a huge problem. Do you have any idea of the staggering amount of energy you'd need to not only accelerate millions of tons of rock to a speed at which the journey is feasible? You fuel requirements would be prohibitedly expensive.

Also, when you were about to arrive, you could quickly exit the asteroid, and let it hurtle into the enemy planet, thus effectively bombarding them before you fired a shot.

That's assuming that you weren't nuked when the enemy discovered they had a planet killer coming out of nowhere going directly towards their homeworld.

Then you could proceed to fight the weakened, surprised enemy.

With what? You spent all your money accelerating some massive rock across 4 light years to just to have it nuked before it could do any damage. Your enemy is now on to your little attack, and is laying in wait for your underfunded fleet to show up.

[Sean Howard]

Cost to send one ship = A
Number of ships = B
Cost to send asteroid = C

Plan 1 (send ships individually): total cost = A¤B

Plan 2 (send ships inside huge asteroid): total cost = A¤B + C

Plus the chances of a calamity destroying your fleet become that much greater if you put all your eggs in one basket, as it were.

Well, this formula wouldn't apply if you somehow got economies of scale for your fuel consumption due to the fact that you just have one giant propulsion system versus 100 little ones.

Whether any presumed efficiency gains would overcome the additional expense of the extra mass of the asteroid seems unlikely.

I guess you have to have some compelling technological reason that your best propulsion system can only be built on an enormous scale.

[Chmee]

You lose stealth? Who would suspect an army hidden inside an asteroid?

If you're at war with someone then yes you suspect everything. When some large unknown object enters your solar system you investigate. And when the volume and radiation of that object doesn't match with natural space phenonom you take notice. Starships at least can be built to be stealthy.

Furthermore, the the extra tonnage of the asteroid is only a problem when one is trying to accelerate.

It's only a huge problem. Do you have any idea of the staggering amount of energy you'd need to not only accelerate millions of tons of rock to a speed at which the journey is feasible? You fuel requirements would be prohibitedly expensive.

That sort of depends on the propulsion method. Since this a non-FTL tech universe, the asteroid might be pushed by launch-lasers mounted on a suitable planet at the edge of the originating solar system ... no fuel carried on the asteroid, and deceleration fuel isn't needed because you're just going to drop the rock on the target planet anyway.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Well, let me explain the set up a little bit more...

What’s happening is theres a couple of races and systems at playhere.

The System that will be attacked is basically screwed; they have a population of fewer than 8 million, and a Basic tech of dark ages, and for the most part Religious Pacifists. Less then .2LY from them, the end arm of a massive Nebula the separates them from the other players. An Alliance of three close by worlds. Currently, their mining the planets asteroid belts when Group A arrives in their Asteroid ship, gets the drop on them, and quickly sets up shop.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Bastard EDIT:

As an Aside, the Propulsion system in question here Actually does work better the bigger it gets. Mainly because the bigger its built, the bigger the power Cores can be to fuel it. Of course to get the whole thing going, Group A used the gravity of the systems Gas Giant to slingshot it ou of the system and into interstell space before main engines are fired... Well, thats How I thought it could be done, you can see why I'm throwing all this out to see if I'm making sense or making technobabble.

[Nephtys]

Well, efficiency and drive power does not increase as things get bigger. They tend to do a bell-curve kind of deal. Tiny drives powering tiny things is inefficient. Monster drives powering giant things is also inefficient. So I suppose 'scale up the power cores' isn't a very good way to explain it. But yeah, one big problem is that any hollow asteroid is going to add a helluva lot of mass to what you're flying. Which wil not make up for fuel savings from short-range shuttles and the like.

[Wicked Pilot]

That sort of depends on the propulsion method. Since this a non-FTL tech universe, the asteroid might be pushed by launch-lasers mounted on a suitable planet at the edge of the originating solar system ... no fuel carried on the asteroid, and deceleration fuel isn't needed because you're just going to drop the rock on the target planet anyway.

Then it wouldn't be a spaceship, but a projectile. Let's keep this discussion confined to the parameters of the origional topic please.

[Chmee]

That sort of depends on the propulsion method. Since this a non-FTL tech universe, the asteroid might be pushed by launch-lasers mounted on a suitable planet at the edge of the originating solar system ... no fuel carried on the asteroid, and deceleration fuel isn't needed because you're just going to drop the rock on the target planet anyway.

Then it wouldn't be a spaceship, but a projectile. Let's keep this discussion confined to the parameters of the origional topic please.

Oi, you're telling me that a vessel that uses launch-lasers to achieve its interstellar velocity doesn't qualify as a 'spaceship'? What does it need to qualify, steering motors? Ok, give it steering motors, your fuel needs for the large mass are still dramatically reduced by giving it most of its velocity through a system that doesn't require it to carry the propellant.

[Wicked Pilot]

Oi, you're telling me that a vessel that uses launch-lasers to achieve its interstellar velocity doesn't qualify as a 'spaceship'?

Read the fucking thread.

Group A used the gravity of the systems Gas Giant to slingshot it out of the system and into interstellar space before main engines are fired...

What does it need to qualify, steering motors?

How about an ability to stop. That would be a good idea seeing that it would kinda be difficult to get captured into an orbit while traveling at .2c. It would also take considerably longer to accelerate to the necessary velocity with a fucking galactic boulder strapped to your back using the most weak system of propulsion ever devised. The whole idea is only non applicable, it's plain stupid.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Short of using a 'roid as a ship base or resource satellite, I don't see why this idea would be of any real use as WP has said.