Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Can a human fighter pilot fully grasp 3 dimensional frictionless movement in space?

+0
−0

My answer to this question essentially came down to the pilot being in a sphere with anything large jutting out of it. Some of the arguments made against me I feel are true if we assume fights like traditional jet planes, but not if a space fighter was designed to make optimal use of 3D space without friction.

By that I mean I was envisioning a fighter that had multiple jets to allow movement in any direction in short notice (since there is no need for a main jet in 'back' to counter friction). I also imagined that the fighter would fight on 3 dimensions, and that you never know exactly what angle you will be attacked from next since all angles are equally valid.

However, the obvious counter to my own arguments seems to be the presumption that this would be optimal for the pilots. A perfectly optimized AI may find this better, but humans have trouble thinking in 3 dimensions. We have an even harder time thinking of a frictionless world. The idea of "this was my front, but now I'm going in a top-right-backwards direction to pursue someone I saw in an angle I wouldn't normally even look in" would just feel odd to a human.

Would a space fighter piloted by humans therefore be made 'inefficiently' to better fit our cognitive biases? Would we have only a few engines and only a few directions we could 'fire' from because it's easier to think in terms of having two or three 'fronts' I can switch between then is to truly grasp the idea that there is no front and any direction is just as valid? Would we have only one set of powerful guns because it's cheaper to build then multiple and we found pilots couldn't handle controlling multiple?

Furthermore, how would we design our fighters, including the UI, control, and similar systems, to help pilots to make split second decisions when they have to handle 3 dimensions at once?

For this question assume we have space fighter jets, piloted by humans, fighting at relatively close ranges. I'm fully aware how impractical it is to use a space fighter over large capital ships and LOTS of AI driven missiles, but that was not the intent of the original question, and my own world uses a number of technological changes to help justify (mostly) space fighters so assume they exist for now.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

This post was sourced from https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/12408. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

0 answers

Sign up to answer this question »