Dogfights in outer spaceHow does a spacecraft attempt an intercept course with a hostile one realistically (Part I)?How does a spacecraft attempt an intercept course with a hostile one realistically (Part II)?Why would spacecraft carriers have long, flat, exposed flight decks, like contemporary aircraft carriers?How would SSTO aircraft affect warfare?What design considerations would there be for a space ship using low-tech bioregenerative advanced life support and propulsions systems?Docking on the outer edge of a rotating wheel space stationInterplanetary fighter craft

Why are Tucker and Malcolm not dead?

What are those bumps on top of the Antonov-225?

PhD advisor lost funding, need advice

Why is the second S silent in "Sens dessus dessous"?

How big are the Choedan Kal?

Corroded Metal vs Magical Armor, should it melt it?

How can God warn people of the upcoming rapture without disrupting society?

If "more guns less crime", how do gun advocates explain that the EU has less crime than the US?

How to Check all AD userers for "blank" password?

What is the status of this patent?

Clarification on Integrability

How do I call a 6-digit Australian phone number with a US-based mobile phone?

Lípínguapua dopo Pêpê

Are there really no countries that protect Freedom of Speech as the United States does?

What can Amex do if I cancel their card after using the sign up bonus miles?

Scam? Phone call from "Department of Social Security" asking me to call back

Tempoverlustspiel

How much can I judge a company based on a phone screening?

Beginner in need of a simple explanation of the difference between order of evaluation and precedence/associativity

Are those flyers about apartment purchase a scam?

The cat ate your input again!

Do Reform Jews believe in a theistic God?

Do beef farmed pastures net remove carbon emissions?

How to find directories containing only specific files



Dogfights in outer space


How does a spacecraft attempt an intercept course with a hostile one realistically (Part I)?How does a spacecraft attempt an intercept course with a hostile one realistically (Part II)?Why would spacecraft carriers have long, flat, exposed flight decks, like contemporary aircraft carriers?How would SSTO aircraft affect warfare?What design considerations would there be for a space ship using low-tech bioregenerative advanced life support and propulsions systems?Docking on the outer edge of a rotating wheel space stationInterplanetary fighter craft






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








3












$begingroup$


Assuming spacecraft are using contemporary propulsion technology, and are engaging in a dogfight in outer space (whether they are manned, drone, or autonomous), would the movements of the craft be abrupt and jerky, or smooth and graceful?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Hi Bob516, what do you mean by "contemporary propulsion technology"? Are you referring to chemical rockets of the Saturn V or SpaceX Dragon? Neither of those are particularly well-suited to dogfighting, with their single main thrust vector and minimal maneuverability.
    $endgroup$
    – Dubukay
    9 hours ago






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    They would be abrupt and jerky... because something has gone horribly horribly wrong. Why are they dogfighting in the first place?
    $endgroup$
    – Cort Ammon
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    It is rude to make changes to a question that invalidate existing answers. I suggest opening a new question, explaining how it is different from this one. You may also consider using the question sandbox.
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    7 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @Renan I only see one edit, and it was just a tag.
    $endgroup$
    – Cort Ammon
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @CortAmmon before the edit there was an answer that went "not possible outside the realms of science-fiction..."
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    7 hours ago


















3












$begingroup$


Assuming spacecraft are using contemporary propulsion technology, and are engaging in a dogfight in outer space (whether they are manned, drone, or autonomous), would the movements of the craft be abrupt and jerky, or smooth and graceful?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Hi Bob516, what do you mean by "contemporary propulsion technology"? Are you referring to chemical rockets of the Saturn V or SpaceX Dragon? Neither of those are particularly well-suited to dogfighting, with their single main thrust vector and minimal maneuverability.
    $endgroup$
    – Dubukay
    9 hours ago






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    They would be abrupt and jerky... because something has gone horribly horribly wrong. Why are they dogfighting in the first place?
    $endgroup$
    – Cort Ammon
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    It is rude to make changes to a question that invalidate existing answers. I suggest opening a new question, explaining how it is different from this one. You may also consider using the question sandbox.
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    7 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @Renan I only see one edit, and it was just a tag.
    $endgroup$
    – Cort Ammon
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @CortAmmon before the edit there was an answer that went "not possible outside the realms of science-fiction..."
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    7 hours ago














3












3








3





$begingroup$


Assuming spacecraft are using contemporary propulsion technology, and are engaging in a dogfight in outer space (whether they are manned, drone, or autonomous), would the movements of the craft be abrupt and jerky, or smooth and graceful?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




Assuming spacecraft are using contemporary propulsion technology, and are engaging in a dogfight in outer space (whether they are manned, drone, or autonomous), would the movements of the craft be abrupt and jerky, or smooth and graceful?







science-fiction spaceships space-combat






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 8 hours ago







Bob516

















asked 9 hours ago









Bob516Bob516

51314 bronze badges




51314 bronze badges














  • $begingroup$
    Hi Bob516, what do you mean by "contemporary propulsion technology"? Are you referring to chemical rockets of the Saturn V or SpaceX Dragon? Neither of those are particularly well-suited to dogfighting, with their single main thrust vector and minimal maneuverability.
    $endgroup$
    – Dubukay
    9 hours ago






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    They would be abrupt and jerky... because something has gone horribly horribly wrong. Why are they dogfighting in the first place?
    $endgroup$
    – Cort Ammon
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    It is rude to make changes to a question that invalidate existing answers. I suggest opening a new question, explaining how it is different from this one. You may also consider using the question sandbox.
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    7 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @Renan I only see one edit, and it was just a tag.
    $endgroup$
    – Cort Ammon
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @CortAmmon before the edit there was an answer that went "not possible outside the realms of science-fiction..."
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    7 hours ago

















  • $begingroup$
    Hi Bob516, what do you mean by "contemporary propulsion technology"? Are you referring to chemical rockets of the Saturn V or SpaceX Dragon? Neither of those are particularly well-suited to dogfighting, with their single main thrust vector and minimal maneuverability.
    $endgroup$
    – Dubukay
    9 hours ago






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    They would be abrupt and jerky... because something has gone horribly horribly wrong. Why are they dogfighting in the first place?
    $endgroup$
    – Cort Ammon
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    It is rude to make changes to a question that invalidate existing answers. I suggest opening a new question, explaining how it is different from this one. You may also consider using the question sandbox.
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    7 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @Renan I only see one edit, and it was just a tag.
    $endgroup$
    – Cort Ammon
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @CortAmmon before the edit there was an answer that went "not possible outside the realms of science-fiction..."
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    7 hours ago
















$begingroup$
Hi Bob516, what do you mean by "contemporary propulsion technology"? Are you referring to chemical rockets of the Saturn V or SpaceX Dragon? Neither of those are particularly well-suited to dogfighting, with their single main thrust vector and minimal maneuverability.
$endgroup$
– Dubukay
9 hours ago




$begingroup$
Hi Bob516, what do you mean by "contemporary propulsion technology"? Are you referring to chemical rockets of the Saturn V or SpaceX Dragon? Neither of those are particularly well-suited to dogfighting, with their single main thrust vector and minimal maneuverability.
$endgroup$
– Dubukay
9 hours ago




5




5




$begingroup$
They would be abrupt and jerky... because something has gone horribly horribly wrong. Why are they dogfighting in the first place?
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
9 hours ago




$begingroup$
They would be abrupt and jerky... because something has gone horribly horribly wrong. Why are they dogfighting in the first place?
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
9 hours ago












$begingroup$
It is rude to make changes to a question that invalidate existing answers. I suggest opening a new question, explaining how it is different from this one. You may also consider using the question sandbox.
$endgroup$
– Renan
7 hours ago





$begingroup$
It is rude to make changes to a question that invalidate existing answers. I suggest opening a new question, explaining how it is different from this one. You may also consider using the question sandbox.
$endgroup$
– Renan
7 hours ago













$begingroup$
@Renan I only see one edit, and it was just a tag.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
7 hours ago




$begingroup$
@Renan I only see one edit, and it was just a tag.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
7 hours ago












$begingroup$
@CortAmmon before the edit there was an answer that went "not possible outside the realms of science-fiction..."
$endgroup$
– Renan
7 hours ago





$begingroup$
@CortAmmon before the edit there was an answer that went "not possible outside the realms of science-fiction..."
$endgroup$
– Renan
7 hours ago











3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















5












$begingroup$

To expand on Cort's comment. Propulsion in space is too costly and distances too great for a dogfight to happen. With modern tech, space combat is limited to more of an artillery duel between satellites that are on more or less fixed trajectories. If they start trying to move around too much they are going to just end up falling into the atmosphere or flying out into space. They can also see eachother way too clearly to ever survive long enough to get into dogfighting range even if they tried. Your armed satellites may have some maneuvering jets designed to make subtle course corrections for dodging, but high speed evasions would use too much fuel and need too heavy of thrusters to be an effective war doctrine using rocket propulsion.



So to answer your question... they would be "smooth and graceful" in the since that they will not actually be moving around much to begin with.



Perhaps one day we will have some manner of technology that will make orbital mechanics and rocket equations a moot point in the face of overwhelmingly efficient and powerful propulsion systems, with what we've got today. Just getting into a stable orbit is a trick unto itself.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$






















    3












    $begingroup$

    There won't be any dogfights in space without the science-fiction tag.



    The reason is that we have been toying with lasers for a long time. The YAL-1 project was cancelled, yes, but it worked kinda well in 2014. If we are going to space, we are going to have better technology. The lack of an atmosphere will also make it much easier to hit stuff with lasers.



    YAL-1 could deliver well in the range of 2kWh in 3 to 5 seconds. That is enough to really ruin the day of whomever is in the receiving end - too concentrated and you get holes in our hull, too dispersed and in the very least your instrumentation goes blind.



    You just can't compete with lasers. The fastest acceleration we've ever managed for a rocket-powered vessel was with New Horizons. It passed the Moon's orbit within nine hours of its launch. Light, however, is much faster and will cover the same distance in close to 1.3 seconds.



    So don't try to enter a dogfight in space - as soon as you are seen, you are toast.



    Someone might say "oh come on Renan, this means acceleration will be jerky in order to avoid lasers". The attacker may simply spread the laser wide. As long as you are within the beam you are in trouble, for the same reason that laser pointers are dangerous to aircraft. The laser will not reach you as a small dot. And once you are blind, there isn't much point in doing random maneuvers.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$














    • $begingroup$
      When spread to a ship-sized spot, 2KW beam is not much worse than a spotlight.
      $endgroup$
      – Alexander
      7 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      As a wide beam you'd just drain your power dry, then they see you again and begin proceeding to destroy you. This concept should be more clearly paired with something like missiles or railguns or something; so, you can capitalize on that blindness. Otherwise this is a good answer.
      $endgroup$
      – Nosajimiki
      4 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      I don't want to rain on your parade, but this answer is a good one about possible contemporary weaponry that could be used in space dogfights and not contemporary propulsion technology as asked in the question.
      $endgroup$
      – a4android
      4 hours ago


















    3












    $begingroup$

    The short answer is jerky and abrupt, but the longer answer is far more interesting...



    First of all, the preceding answers explain why fighter combat in space is really a bad idea; it's not an efficient use of propellants or fuels, and you're far better off doing what was done in naval warfare; focusing on a smaller number of larger ships with REALLY big, long range, powerful guns. But if you insist on putting fighters up there, the first thing you have to do is get the idea of air combat out of your head; space fighters and dogfights are going to look completely different.



    Let's start with the fighters themselves. They are not going to be sleek, aerodynamic craft that bank and turn gracefully; they're going to be spheres.



    The reason for this is very simple. In an atmosphere, the air itself gives the plane something to help the craft bank and turn; the wings effectively push air around themselves and shape it with control surfaces to move the plane in a desired direction; it's actually pushing against the air to go where it needs to go. In space you don't have that so every change in velocity (whether it be speed, direction or both) must be done with a maneuvering thrusters. To make your fighter as agile as possible, you want to be able to thrust in almost every direction so that you can react to the combat around you with a minimum of orientation changes (as these also cost fuel) and to do that, you want thrusters pointing out in almost every possible direction. That means a sphere.



    Now, it's possible for you to thrust in almost any direction without a sphere if you have a thruster that can turn and spin around you; say 3 thrusters each at 120o from each other on a ring that can rotate and spin around your ship, but in a combat situation do you really want to wait the half second or so for your ring to put the thrusters in the right position? Probably not. So, sphere.



    Now, dealing with the maneuvers; because you're not pushing against anything but firing a thruster every time you want to turn, and because you don't want to ramp up the thruster gently (time is not your friend in combat) you're going to have a very abrupt, jerky, but agile turning approach. You'll be able to pull off moves that are simply not possible in a plane, and most banking turns a plane uses will actually be inefficient for this kind of fighter, but you're in a different medium to begin with which is why you need to think in a different way as to how you move about in combat.



    Realistically; for space fighters, you want them to be drones. The G forces and inertial effects on the craft are not going to be friendly to your pilot, who needs to be able to maintain some consistent frame of reference for 'up' and all the accompanying directions. You can't do that in a space fighter because every thrust is going to act on the pilot to reorient his 'down' to align with the thruster just fired. Also, because of the fact that you're moving in a way that planes can't most of the time, your pilot will suffer massive G-forces and won't last long in the cockpit. Further, not having to maintain life support for the pilot means you can make the craft more compact, making it a smaller target while also allowing it to be more nimble. It's basically a weapons platform surrounded by engines all pointing outwards.



    The important thing to note is that cars, planes, and even boats can manage their smooth turns because they're all effectively pushing against something; a road, the ocean, or an atmosphere. Your space fighter has nothing to push against, so it must use its engines to do ALL the pushing. Once you get your head around that, smoothing the change in velocity means making the craft inefficient and before long, you're taking the pilot out of the craft for his or her protection more than anything else as you give your craft an edge (hopefully) over the enemy craft.



    Put even more simply, if modern drones could be designed to make instant 90o turns in the air, they would be simply because it would give them an edge in combat. Your space fighters CAN be designed to do that, so they will.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$














    • $begingroup$
      Space fighters designed to make 90<sup>o</sup> turns in space? Not quite. They would need to decelerate almost instantaneous in their forward momentum vector while doing the same in accelerating orthogonally. This exceeds contemporary propulsion technology by orders of magnitude. But given the right propulsion systems, yes they could, though not presently.
      $endgroup$
      – a4android
      3 hours ago













    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "579"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f152899%2fdogfights-in-outer-space%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    5












    $begingroup$

    To expand on Cort's comment. Propulsion in space is too costly and distances too great for a dogfight to happen. With modern tech, space combat is limited to more of an artillery duel between satellites that are on more or less fixed trajectories. If they start trying to move around too much they are going to just end up falling into the atmosphere or flying out into space. They can also see eachother way too clearly to ever survive long enough to get into dogfighting range even if they tried. Your armed satellites may have some maneuvering jets designed to make subtle course corrections for dodging, but high speed evasions would use too much fuel and need too heavy of thrusters to be an effective war doctrine using rocket propulsion.



    So to answer your question... they would be "smooth and graceful" in the since that they will not actually be moving around much to begin with.



    Perhaps one day we will have some manner of technology that will make orbital mechanics and rocket equations a moot point in the face of overwhelmingly efficient and powerful propulsion systems, with what we've got today. Just getting into a stable orbit is a trick unto itself.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



















      5












      $begingroup$

      To expand on Cort's comment. Propulsion in space is too costly and distances too great for a dogfight to happen. With modern tech, space combat is limited to more of an artillery duel between satellites that are on more or less fixed trajectories. If they start trying to move around too much they are going to just end up falling into the atmosphere or flying out into space. They can also see eachother way too clearly to ever survive long enough to get into dogfighting range even if they tried. Your armed satellites may have some maneuvering jets designed to make subtle course corrections for dodging, but high speed evasions would use too much fuel and need too heavy of thrusters to be an effective war doctrine using rocket propulsion.



      So to answer your question... they would be "smooth and graceful" in the since that they will not actually be moving around much to begin with.



      Perhaps one day we will have some manner of technology that will make orbital mechanics and rocket equations a moot point in the face of overwhelmingly efficient and powerful propulsion systems, with what we've got today. Just getting into a stable orbit is a trick unto itself.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$

















        5












        5








        5





        $begingroup$

        To expand on Cort's comment. Propulsion in space is too costly and distances too great for a dogfight to happen. With modern tech, space combat is limited to more of an artillery duel between satellites that are on more or less fixed trajectories. If they start trying to move around too much they are going to just end up falling into the atmosphere or flying out into space. They can also see eachother way too clearly to ever survive long enough to get into dogfighting range even if they tried. Your armed satellites may have some maneuvering jets designed to make subtle course corrections for dodging, but high speed evasions would use too much fuel and need too heavy of thrusters to be an effective war doctrine using rocket propulsion.



        So to answer your question... they would be "smooth and graceful" in the since that they will not actually be moving around much to begin with.



        Perhaps one day we will have some manner of technology that will make orbital mechanics and rocket equations a moot point in the face of overwhelmingly efficient and powerful propulsion systems, with what we've got today. Just getting into a stable orbit is a trick unto itself.






        share|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        To expand on Cort's comment. Propulsion in space is too costly and distances too great for a dogfight to happen. With modern tech, space combat is limited to more of an artillery duel between satellites that are on more or less fixed trajectories. If they start trying to move around too much they are going to just end up falling into the atmosphere or flying out into space. They can also see eachother way too clearly to ever survive long enough to get into dogfighting range even if they tried. Your armed satellites may have some maneuvering jets designed to make subtle course corrections for dodging, but high speed evasions would use too much fuel and need too heavy of thrusters to be an effective war doctrine using rocket propulsion.



        So to answer your question... they would be "smooth and graceful" in the since that they will not actually be moving around much to begin with.



        Perhaps one day we will have some manner of technology that will make orbital mechanics and rocket equations a moot point in the face of overwhelmingly efficient and powerful propulsion systems, with what we've got today. Just getting into a stable orbit is a trick unto itself.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 8 hours ago

























        answered 8 hours ago









        NosajimikiNosajimiki

        8,6091 gold badge11 silver badges45 bronze badges




        8,6091 gold badge11 silver badges45 bronze badges


























            3












            $begingroup$

            There won't be any dogfights in space without the science-fiction tag.



            The reason is that we have been toying with lasers for a long time. The YAL-1 project was cancelled, yes, but it worked kinda well in 2014. If we are going to space, we are going to have better technology. The lack of an atmosphere will also make it much easier to hit stuff with lasers.



            YAL-1 could deliver well in the range of 2kWh in 3 to 5 seconds. That is enough to really ruin the day of whomever is in the receiving end - too concentrated and you get holes in our hull, too dispersed and in the very least your instrumentation goes blind.



            You just can't compete with lasers. The fastest acceleration we've ever managed for a rocket-powered vessel was with New Horizons. It passed the Moon's orbit within nine hours of its launch. Light, however, is much faster and will cover the same distance in close to 1.3 seconds.



            So don't try to enter a dogfight in space - as soon as you are seen, you are toast.



            Someone might say "oh come on Renan, this means acceleration will be jerky in order to avoid lasers". The attacker may simply spread the laser wide. As long as you are within the beam you are in trouble, for the same reason that laser pointers are dangerous to aircraft. The laser will not reach you as a small dot. And once you are blind, there isn't much point in doing random maneuvers.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$














            • $begingroup$
              When spread to a ship-sized spot, 2KW beam is not much worse than a spotlight.
              $endgroup$
              – Alexander
              7 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              As a wide beam you'd just drain your power dry, then they see you again and begin proceeding to destroy you. This concept should be more clearly paired with something like missiles or railguns or something; so, you can capitalize on that blindness. Otherwise this is a good answer.
              $endgroup$
              – Nosajimiki
              4 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              I don't want to rain on your parade, but this answer is a good one about possible contemporary weaponry that could be used in space dogfights and not contemporary propulsion technology as asked in the question.
              $endgroup$
              – a4android
              4 hours ago















            3












            $begingroup$

            There won't be any dogfights in space without the science-fiction tag.



            The reason is that we have been toying with lasers for a long time. The YAL-1 project was cancelled, yes, but it worked kinda well in 2014. If we are going to space, we are going to have better technology. The lack of an atmosphere will also make it much easier to hit stuff with lasers.



            YAL-1 could deliver well in the range of 2kWh in 3 to 5 seconds. That is enough to really ruin the day of whomever is in the receiving end - too concentrated and you get holes in our hull, too dispersed and in the very least your instrumentation goes blind.



            You just can't compete with lasers. The fastest acceleration we've ever managed for a rocket-powered vessel was with New Horizons. It passed the Moon's orbit within nine hours of its launch. Light, however, is much faster and will cover the same distance in close to 1.3 seconds.



            So don't try to enter a dogfight in space - as soon as you are seen, you are toast.



            Someone might say "oh come on Renan, this means acceleration will be jerky in order to avoid lasers". The attacker may simply spread the laser wide. As long as you are within the beam you are in trouble, for the same reason that laser pointers are dangerous to aircraft. The laser will not reach you as a small dot. And once you are blind, there isn't much point in doing random maneuvers.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$














            • $begingroup$
              When spread to a ship-sized spot, 2KW beam is not much worse than a spotlight.
              $endgroup$
              – Alexander
              7 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              As a wide beam you'd just drain your power dry, then they see you again and begin proceeding to destroy you. This concept should be more clearly paired with something like missiles or railguns or something; so, you can capitalize on that blindness. Otherwise this is a good answer.
              $endgroup$
              – Nosajimiki
              4 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              I don't want to rain on your parade, but this answer is a good one about possible contemporary weaponry that could be used in space dogfights and not contemporary propulsion technology as asked in the question.
              $endgroup$
              – a4android
              4 hours ago













            3












            3








            3





            $begingroup$

            There won't be any dogfights in space without the science-fiction tag.



            The reason is that we have been toying with lasers for a long time. The YAL-1 project was cancelled, yes, but it worked kinda well in 2014. If we are going to space, we are going to have better technology. The lack of an atmosphere will also make it much easier to hit stuff with lasers.



            YAL-1 could deliver well in the range of 2kWh in 3 to 5 seconds. That is enough to really ruin the day of whomever is in the receiving end - too concentrated and you get holes in our hull, too dispersed and in the very least your instrumentation goes blind.



            You just can't compete with lasers. The fastest acceleration we've ever managed for a rocket-powered vessel was with New Horizons. It passed the Moon's orbit within nine hours of its launch. Light, however, is much faster and will cover the same distance in close to 1.3 seconds.



            So don't try to enter a dogfight in space - as soon as you are seen, you are toast.



            Someone might say "oh come on Renan, this means acceleration will be jerky in order to avoid lasers". The attacker may simply spread the laser wide. As long as you are within the beam you are in trouble, for the same reason that laser pointers are dangerous to aircraft. The laser will not reach you as a small dot. And once you are blind, there isn't much point in doing random maneuvers.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            There won't be any dogfights in space without the science-fiction tag.



            The reason is that we have been toying with lasers for a long time. The YAL-1 project was cancelled, yes, but it worked kinda well in 2014. If we are going to space, we are going to have better technology. The lack of an atmosphere will also make it much easier to hit stuff with lasers.



            YAL-1 could deliver well in the range of 2kWh in 3 to 5 seconds. That is enough to really ruin the day of whomever is in the receiving end - too concentrated and you get holes in our hull, too dispersed and in the very least your instrumentation goes blind.



            You just can't compete with lasers. The fastest acceleration we've ever managed for a rocket-powered vessel was with New Horizons. It passed the Moon's orbit within nine hours of its launch. Light, however, is much faster and will cover the same distance in close to 1.3 seconds.



            So don't try to enter a dogfight in space - as soon as you are seen, you are toast.



            Someone might say "oh come on Renan, this means acceleration will be jerky in order to avoid lasers". The attacker may simply spread the laser wide. As long as you are within the beam you are in trouble, for the same reason that laser pointers are dangerous to aircraft. The laser will not reach you as a small dot. And once you are blind, there isn't much point in doing random maneuvers.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 8 hours ago









            RenanRenan

            64.3k19 gold badges151 silver badges315 bronze badges




            64.3k19 gold badges151 silver badges315 bronze badges














            • $begingroup$
              When spread to a ship-sized spot, 2KW beam is not much worse than a spotlight.
              $endgroup$
              – Alexander
              7 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              As a wide beam you'd just drain your power dry, then they see you again and begin proceeding to destroy you. This concept should be more clearly paired with something like missiles or railguns or something; so, you can capitalize on that blindness. Otherwise this is a good answer.
              $endgroup$
              – Nosajimiki
              4 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              I don't want to rain on your parade, but this answer is a good one about possible contemporary weaponry that could be used in space dogfights and not contemporary propulsion technology as asked in the question.
              $endgroup$
              – a4android
              4 hours ago
















            • $begingroup$
              When spread to a ship-sized spot, 2KW beam is not much worse than a spotlight.
              $endgroup$
              – Alexander
              7 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              As a wide beam you'd just drain your power dry, then they see you again and begin proceeding to destroy you. This concept should be more clearly paired with something like missiles or railguns or something; so, you can capitalize on that blindness. Otherwise this is a good answer.
              $endgroup$
              – Nosajimiki
              4 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              I don't want to rain on your parade, but this answer is a good one about possible contemporary weaponry that could be used in space dogfights and not contemporary propulsion technology as asked in the question.
              $endgroup$
              – a4android
              4 hours ago















            $begingroup$
            When spread to a ship-sized spot, 2KW beam is not much worse than a spotlight.
            $endgroup$
            – Alexander
            7 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            When spread to a ship-sized spot, 2KW beam is not much worse than a spotlight.
            $endgroup$
            – Alexander
            7 hours ago












            $begingroup$
            As a wide beam you'd just drain your power dry, then they see you again and begin proceeding to destroy you. This concept should be more clearly paired with something like missiles or railguns or something; so, you can capitalize on that blindness. Otherwise this is a good answer.
            $endgroup$
            – Nosajimiki
            4 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            As a wide beam you'd just drain your power dry, then they see you again and begin proceeding to destroy you. This concept should be more clearly paired with something like missiles or railguns or something; so, you can capitalize on that blindness. Otherwise this is a good answer.
            $endgroup$
            – Nosajimiki
            4 hours ago












            $begingroup$
            I don't want to rain on your parade, but this answer is a good one about possible contemporary weaponry that could be used in space dogfights and not contemporary propulsion technology as asked in the question.
            $endgroup$
            – a4android
            4 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            I don't want to rain on your parade, but this answer is a good one about possible contemporary weaponry that could be used in space dogfights and not contemporary propulsion technology as asked in the question.
            $endgroup$
            – a4android
            4 hours ago











            3












            $begingroup$

            The short answer is jerky and abrupt, but the longer answer is far more interesting...



            First of all, the preceding answers explain why fighter combat in space is really a bad idea; it's not an efficient use of propellants or fuels, and you're far better off doing what was done in naval warfare; focusing on a smaller number of larger ships with REALLY big, long range, powerful guns. But if you insist on putting fighters up there, the first thing you have to do is get the idea of air combat out of your head; space fighters and dogfights are going to look completely different.



            Let's start with the fighters themselves. They are not going to be sleek, aerodynamic craft that bank and turn gracefully; they're going to be spheres.



            The reason for this is very simple. In an atmosphere, the air itself gives the plane something to help the craft bank and turn; the wings effectively push air around themselves and shape it with control surfaces to move the plane in a desired direction; it's actually pushing against the air to go where it needs to go. In space you don't have that so every change in velocity (whether it be speed, direction or both) must be done with a maneuvering thrusters. To make your fighter as agile as possible, you want to be able to thrust in almost every direction so that you can react to the combat around you with a minimum of orientation changes (as these also cost fuel) and to do that, you want thrusters pointing out in almost every possible direction. That means a sphere.



            Now, it's possible for you to thrust in almost any direction without a sphere if you have a thruster that can turn and spin around you; say 3 thrusters each at 120o from each other on a ring that can rotate and spin around your ship, but in a combat situation do you really want to wait the half second or so for your ring to put the thrusters in the right position? Probably not. So, sphere.



            Now, dealing with the maneuvers; because you're not pushing against anything but firing a thruster every time you want to turn, and because you don't want to ramp up the thruster gently (time is not your friend in combat) you're going to have a very abrupt, jerky, but agile turning approach. You'll be able to pull off moves that are simply not possible in a plane, and most banking turns a plane uses will actually be inefficient for this kind of fighter, but you're in a different medium to begin with which is why you need to think in a different way as to how you move about in combat.



            Realistically; for space fighters, you want them to be drones. The G forces and inertial effects on the craft are not going to be friendly to your pilot, who needs to be able to maintain some consistent frame of reference for 'up' and all the accompanying directions. You can't do that in a space fighter because every thrust is going to act on the pilot to reorient his 'down' to align with the thruster just fired. Also, because of the fact that you're moving in a way that planes can't most of the time, your pilot will suffer massive G-forces and won't last long in the cockpit. Further, not having to maintain life support for the pilot means you can make the craft more compact, making it a smaller target while also allowing it to be more nimble. It's basically a weapons platform surrounded by engines all pointing outwards.



            The important thing to note is that cars, planes, and even boats can manage their smooth turns because they're all effectively pushing against something; a road, the ocean, or an atmosphere. Your space fighter has nothing to push against, so it must use its engines to do ALL the pushing. Once you get your head around that, smoothing the change in velocity means making the craft inefficient and before long, you're taking the pilot out of the craft for his or her protection more than anything else as you give your craft an edge (hopefully) over the enemy craft.



            Put even more simply, if modern drones could be designed to make instant 90o turns in the air, they would be simply because it would give them an edge in combat. Your space fighters CAN be designed to do that, so they will.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$














            • $begingroup$
              Space fighters designed to make 90<sup>o</sup> turns in space? Not quite. They would need to decelerate almost instantaneous in their forward momentum vector while doing the same in accelerating orthogonally. This exceeds contemporary propulsion technology by orders of magnitude. But given the right propulsion systems, yes they could, though not presently.
              $endgroup$
              – a4android
              3 hours ago















            3












            $begingroup$

            The short answer is jerky and abrupt, but the longer answer is far more interesting...



            First of all, the preceding answers explain why fighter combat in space is really a bad idea; it's not an efficient use of propellants or fuels, and you're far better off doing what was done in naval warfare; focusing on a smaller number of larger ships with REALLY big, long range, powerful guns. But if you insist on putting fighters up there, the first thing you have to do is get the idea of air combat out of your head; space fighters and dogfights are going to look completely different.



            Let's start with the fighters themselves. They are not going to be sleek, aerodynamic craft that bank and turn gracefully; they're going to be spheres.



            The reason for this is very simple. In an atmosphere, the air itself gives the plane something to help the craft bank and turn; the wings effectively push air around themselves and shape it with control surfaces to move the plane in a desired direction; it's actually pushing against the air to go where it needs to go. In space you don't have that so every change in velocity (whether it be speed, direction or both) must be done with a maneuvering thrusters. To make your fighter as agile as possible, you want to be able to thrust in almost every direction so that you can react to the combat around you with a minimum of orientation changes (as these also cost fuel) and to do that, you want thrusters pointing out in almost every possible direction. That means a sphere.



            Now, it's possible for you to thrust in almost any direction without a sphere if you have a thruster that can turn and spin around you; say 3 thrusters each at 120o from each other on a ring that can rotate and spin around your ship, but in a combat situation do you really want to wait the half second or so for your ring to put the thrusters in the right position? Probably not. So, sphere.



            Now, dealing with the maneuvers; because you're not pushing against anything but firing a thruster every time you want to turn, and because you don't want to ramp up the thruster gently (time is not your friend in combat) you're going to have a very abrupt, jerky, but agile turning approach. You'll be able to pull off moves that are simply not possible in a plane, and most banking turns a plane uses will actually be inefficient for this kind of fighter, but you're in a different medium to begin with which is why you need to think in a different way as to how you move about in combat.



            Realistically; for space fighters, you want them to be drones. The G forces and inertial effects on the craft are not going to be friendly to your pilot, who needs to be able to maintain some consistent frame of reference for 'up' and all the accompanying directions. You can't do that in a space fighter because every thrust is going to act on the pilot to reorient his 'down' to align with the thruster just fired. Also, because of the fact that you're moving in a way that planes can't most of the time, your pilot will suffer massive G-forces and won't last long in the cockpit. Further, not having to maintain life support for the pilot means you can make the craft more compact, making it a smaller target while also allowing it to be more nimble. It's basically a weapons platform surrounded by engines all pointing outwards.



            The important thing to note is that cars, planes, and even boats can manage their smooth turns because they're all effectively pushing against something; a road, the ocean, or an atmosphere. Your space fighter has nothing to push against, so it must use its engines to do ALL the pushing. Once you get your head around that, smoothing the change in velocity means making the craft inefficient and before long, you're taking the pilot out of the craft for his or her protection more than anything else as you give your craft an edge (hopefully) over the enemy craft.



            Put even more simply, if modern drones could be designed to make instant 90o turns in the air, they would be simply because it would give them an edge in combat. Your space fighters CAN be designed to do that, so they will.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$














            • $begingroup$
              Space fighters designed to make 90<sup>o</sup> turns in space? Not quite. They would need to decelerate almost instantaneous in their forward momentum vector while doing the same in accelerating orthogonally. This exceeds contemporary propulsion technology by orders of magnitude. But given the right propulsion systems, yes they could, though not presently.
              $endgroup$
              – a4android
              3 hours ago













            3












            3








            3





            $begingroup$

            The short answer is jerky and abrupt, but the longer answer is far more interesting...



            First of all, the preceding answers explain why fighter combat in space is really a bad idea; it's not an efficient use of propellants or fuels, and you're far better off doing what was done in naval warfare; focusing on a smaller number of larger ships with REALLY big, long range, powerful guns. But if you insist on putting fighters up there, the first thing you have to do is get the idea of air combat out of your head; space fighters and dogfights are going to look completely different.



            Let's start with the fighters themselves. They are not going to be sleek, aerodynamic craft that bank and turn gracefully; they're going to be spheres.



            The reason for this is very simple. In an atmosphere, the air itself gives the plane something to help the craft bank and turn; the wings effectively push air around themselves and shape it with control surfaces to move the plane in a desired direction; it's actually pushing against the air to go where it needs to go. In space you don't have that so every change in velocity (whether it be speed, direction or both) must be done with a maneuvering thrusters. To make your fighter as agile as possible, you want to be able to thrust in almost every direction so that you can react to the combat around you with a minimum of orientation changes (as these also cost fuel) and to do that, you want thrusters pointing out in almost every possible direction. That means a sphere.



            Now, it's possible for you to thrust in almost any direction without a sphere if you have a thruster that can turn and spin around you; say 3 thrusters each at 120o from each other on a ring that can rotate and spin around your ship, but in a combat situation do you really want to wait the half second or so for your ring to put the thrusters in the right position? Probably not. So, sphere.



            Now, dealing with the maneuvers; because you're not pushing against anything but firing a thruster every time you want to turn, and because you don't want to ramp up the thruster gently (time is not your friend in combat) you're going to have a very abrupt, jerky, but agile turning approach. You'll be able to pull off moves that are simply not possible in a plane, and most banking turns a plane uses will actually be inefficient for this kind of fighter, but you're in a different medium to begin with which is why you need to think in a different way as to how you move about in combat.



            Realistically; for space fighters, you want them to be drones. The G forces and inertial effects on the craft are not going to be friendly to your pilot, who needs to be able to maintain some consistent frame of reference for 'up' and all the accompanying directions. You can't do that in a space fighter because every thrust is going to act on the pilot to reorient his 'down' to align with the thruster just fired. Also, because of the fact that you're moving in a way that planes can't most of the time, your pilot will suffer massive G-forces and won't last long in the cockpit. Further, not having to maintain life support for the pilot means you can make the craft more compact, making it a smaller target while also allowing it to be more nimble. It's basically a weapons platform surrounded by engines all pointing outwards.



            The important thing to note is that cars, planes, and even boats can manage their smooth turns because they're all effectively pushing against something; a road, the ocean, or an atmosphere. Your space fighter has nothing to push against, so it must use its engines to do ALL the pushing. Once you get your head around that, smoothing the change in velocity means making the craft inefficient and before long, you're taking the pilot out of the craft for his or her protection more than anything else as you give your craft an edge (hopefully) over the enemy craft.



            Put even more simply, if modern drones could be designed to make instant 90o turns in the air, they would be simply because it would give them an edge in combat. Your space fighters CAN be designed to do that, so they will.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            The short answer is jerky and abrupt, but the longer answer is far more interesting...



            First of all, the preceding answers explain why fighter combat in space is really a bad idea; it's not an efficient use of propellants or fuels, and you're far better off doing what was done in naval warfare; focusing on a smaller number of larger ships with REALLY big, long range, powerful guns. But if you insist on putting fighters up there, the first thing you have to do is get the idea of air combat out of your head; space fighters and dogfights are going to look completely different.



            Let's start with the fighters themselves. They are not going to be sleek, aerodynamic craft that bank and turn gracefully; they're going to be spheres.



            The reason for this is very simple. In an atmosphere, the air itself gives the plane something to help the craft bank and turn; the wings effectively push air around themselves and shape it with control surfaces to move the plane in a desired direction; it's actually pushing against the air to go where it needs to go. In space you don't have that so every change in velocity (whether it be speed, direction or both) must be done with a maneuvering thrusters. To make your fighter as agile as possible, you want to be able to thrust in almost every direction so that you can react to the combat around you with a minimum of orientation changes (as these also cost fuel) and to do that, you want thrusters pointing out in almost every possible direction. That means a sphere.



            Now, it's possible for you to thrust in almost any direction without a sphere if you have a thruster that can turn and spin around you; say 3 thrusters each at 120o from each other on a ring that can rotate and spin around your ship, but in a combat situation do you really want to wait the half second or so for your ring to put the thrusters in the right position? Probably not. So, sphere.



            Now, dealing with the maneuvers; because you're not pushing against anything but firing a thruster every time you want to turn, and because you don't want to ramp up the thruster gently (time is not your friend in combat) you're going to have a very abrupt, jerky, but agile turning approach. You'll be able to pull off moves that are simply not possible in a plane, and most banking turns a plane uses will actually be inefficient for this kind of fighter, but you're in a different medium to begin with which is why you need to think in a different way as to how you move about in combat.



            Realistically; for space fighters, you want them to be drones. The G forces and inertial effects on the craft are not going to be friendly to your pilot, who needs to be able to maintain some consistent frame of reference for 'up' and all the accompanying directions. You can't do that in a space fighter because every thrust is going to act on the pilot to reorient his 'down' to align with the thruster just fired. Also, because of the fact that you're moving in a way that planes can't most of the time, your pilot will suffer massive G-forces and won't last long in the cockpit. Further, not having to maintain life support for the pilot means you can make the craft more compact, making it a smaller target while also allowing it to be more nimble. It's basically a weapons platform surrounded by engines all pointing outwards.



            The important thing to note is that cars, planes, and even boats can manage their smooth turns because they're all effectively pushing against something; a road, the ocean, or an atmosphere. Your space fighter has nothing to push against, so it must use its engines to do ALL the pushing. Once you get your head around that, smoothing the change in velocity means making the craft inefficient and before long, you're taking the pilot out of the craft for his or her protection more than anything else as you give your craft an edge (hopefully) over the enemy craft.



            Put even more simply, if modern drones could be designed to make instant 90o turns in the air, they would be simply because it would give them an edge in combat. Your space fighters CAN be designed to do that, so they will.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 6 hours ago









            Tim B IITim B II

            40.3k6 gold badges90 silver badges162 bronze badges




            40.3k6 gold badges90 silver badges162 bronze badges














            • $begingroup$
              Space fighters designed to make 90<sup>o</sup> turns in space? Not quite. They would need to decelerate almost instantaneous in their forward momentum vector while doing the same in accelerating orthogonally. This exceeds contemporary propulsion technology by orders of magnitude. But given the right propulsion systems, yes they could, though not presently.
              $endgroup$
              – a4android
              3 hours ago
















            • $begingroup$
              Space fighters designed to make 90<sup>o</sup> turns in space? Not quite. They would need to decelerate almost instantaneous in their forward momentum vector while doing the same in accelerating orthogonally. This exceeds contemporary propulsion technology by orders of magnitude. But given the right propulsion systems, yes they could, though not presently.
              $endgroup$
              – a4android
              3 hours ago















            $begingroup$
            Space fighters designed to make 90<sup>o</sup> turns in space? Not quite. They would need to decelerate almost instantaneous in their forward momentum vector while doing the same in accelerating orthogonally. This exceeds contemporary propulsion technology by orders of magnitude. But given the right propulsion systems, yes they could, though not presently.
            $endgroup$
            – a4android
            3 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            Space fighters designed to make 90<sup>o</sup> turns in space? Not quite. They would need to decelerate almost instantaneous in their forward momentum vector while doing the same in accelerating orthogonally. This exceeds contemporary propulsion technology by orders of magnitude. But given the right propulsion systems, yes they could, though not presently.
            $endgroup$
            – a4android
            3 hours ago

















            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f152899%2fdogfights-in-outer-space%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

            Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

            Tom Holland Mục lục Đầu đời và giáo dục | Sự nghiệp | Cuộc sống cá nhân | Phim tham gia | Giải thưởng và đề cử | Chú thích | Liên kết ngoài | Trình đơn chuyển hướngProfile“Person Details for Thomas Stanley Holland, "England and Wales Birth Registration Index, 1837-2008" — FamilySearch.org”"Meet Tom Holland... the 16-year-old star of The Impossible""Schoolboy actor Tom Holland finds himself in Oscar contention for role in tsunami drama"“Naomi Watts on the Prince William and Harry's reaction to her film about the late Princess Diana”lưu trữ"Holland and Pflueger Are West End's Two New 'Billy Elliots'""I'm so envious of my son, the movie star! British writer Dominic Holland's spent 20 years trying to crack Hollywood - but he's been beaten to it by a very unlikely rival"“Richard and Margaret Povey of Jersey, Channel Islands, UK: Information about Thomas Stanley Holland”"Tom Holland to play Billy Elliot""New Billy Elliot leaving the garage"Billy Elliot the Musical - Tom Holland - Billy"A Tale of four Billys: Tom Holland""The Feel Good Factor""Thames Christian College schoolboys join Myleene Klass for The Feelgood Factor""Government launches £600,000 arts bursaries pilot""BILLY's Chapman, Holland, Gardner & Jackson-Keen Visit Prime Minister""Elton John 'blown away' by Billy Elliot fifth birthday" (video with John's interview and fragments of Holland's performance)"First News interviews Arrietty's Tom Holland"“33rd Critics' Circle Film Awards winners”“National Board of Review Current Awards”Bản gốc"Ron Howard Whaling Tale 'In The Heart Of The Sea' Casts Tom Holland"“'Spider-Man' Finds Tom Holland to Star as New Web-Slinger”lưu trữ“Captain America: Civil War (2016)”“Film Review: ‘Captain America: Civil War’”lưu trữ“‘Captain America: Civil War’ review: Choose your own avenger”lưu trữ“The Lost City of Z reviews”“Sony Pictures and Marvel Studios Find Their 'Spider-Man' Star and Director”“‘Mary Magdalene’, ‘Current War’ & ‘Wind River’ Get 2017 Release Dates From Weinstein”“Lionsgate Unleashing Daisy Ridley & Tom Holland Starrer ‘Chaos Walking’ In Cannes”“PTA's 'Master' Leads Chicago Film Critics Nominations, UPDATED: Houston and Indiana Critics Nominations”“Nominaciones Goya 2013 Telecinco Cinema – ENG”“Jameson Empire Film Awards: Martin Freeman wins best actor for performance in The Hobbit”“34th Annual Young Artist Awards”Bản gốc“Teen Choice Awards 2016—Captain America: Civil War Leads Second Wave of Nominations”“BAFTA Film Award Nominations: ‘La La Land’ Leads Race”“Saturn Awards Nominations 2017: 'Rogue One,' 'Walking Dead' Lead”Tom HollandTom HollandTom HollandTom Hollandmedia.gettyimages.comWorldCat Identities300279794no20130442900000 0004 0355 42791085670554170004732cb16706349t(data)XX5557367