Space combat?

Yes, compare able of falling onto water. But since our stations and ships aren't that big it's unlikely you get a lot of air pushing you.
On the other side the Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243 showed airstream sucking and peak pressure are not to be underestimated. I heard there was a mythbuster eepisode a long time ago that deals with it but never saw it for some reason. From what I read I think they did the test wrong. It didn't account for the airstream outside. While the pressure difference was the same they did it on the ground. This is where the most vital difference lies. You see for example the pressure is 1 bar inside, 0.5 outside. You got a ration of 1:0.5=2 difference. Why is it important? Because we start from 0 pressure (close to it). Now the test has obviously 1.5 bar inside and 1 bar outside. That's a ratio of 1.5:1=1.5. It's a huge difference. Same analogy as a beggar donating a dollar while a millionaire donates a thousand.

That is one reason I perfer to sit in the aisle if I fly.That and looking out the window too much makes me nervous.

Though it doesn't really make much difference in actual fact.

I haven't seen too many episodes of Mythbusters lately myself.And I don't recall
the air pressure test either,so I can't say anything on that matter.Though I wonder
how many times they do tests wrong by excluding factors that might be important later on like that.

Seat near the wings are the safest, if the accident isn't too bad.

Well, haven't following MB in recent time, too. Most episodes deal with rather childish, basic or no-brainer problems. The important ones are riddle with little debatable errors. I'm not saying MB is bad but it could be better. I've seen shows trying to redo the same things with even worse (more erroneous) approaches.

They have their own stage show now.

Yeah, I heard something like that but dunno what they are going to do.

Another fun thing to ponder about:

What's happening when you suddenly see a second sun?

1. If it's a nuke you are within 60 km (40 mi) of it and likely will go blind.

2. You got probably less than a second before a meteorite impacts (on top) very close to you.

3. You are in some Star Wars movie.

Let's take up another topic of interest (again):

Gunfire in the vacuum of space
&
Gunfire on the Moon

Some people say guns can't fire in vacuum because there is no air.
Sorry, but I can only say these people don't know anything. They know oxygen is need but ignore the fact that gunpowder has always been stuffed or enclosed in a flint or cartridgee with no access to air.
Perhaps (I doubt it) it won't work with the oldest gunpowder formular but certainly for any since the 17/18th century at least. You don't need to be a gun buff to understand this.

The differences between firing a gun on Earth and in the vacuum of space are:
-there is no air
-there is virtually no gravity
-space is unforgiving
as a result a bullet flies off faster and virtually indefinitely until it hits something

The recoil of the gun is the same as on Earth as it depends on the energy and masses of the bullet and the person firing it.
In zero gravity and with no food hold, the person would be thrown back, though. How fast the person gets thrown depends on the impulse.

The maximum velocity of a bullet depends on the length of the muzzle which determines how much of the blast energy is being transfered to the bullet.
Needless to say, there is a terminal velocity when the gas pressure won't give any more relevant acceleration to the bullet.
I guess a reasonable length for the muzzle is L250-300 or 250-300 times the diameter of the bullet to achieve terminal velocity.
Here, we ignore the friction resistance coming from the muzzle itself. It is not important as it is the same whereever it is fired anyway.

Due to the various factors we can't really tell how fast a bullet will be based on the energy contained in a cartridgee alone.
Not to mention the variation from cartridgee to cartridgee. And like on Earth testfirings are needed to determine an average velocity.
Nonetheless we can approximate something based on known data.

I'm not a gun buff so I can't choose a neat real world examples yet.
Getting back to it later.

Perhaps firearms used in space will use a similiar sort of trigger mechanism as spearguns?

I was thinking after posting that last comment that probably in space combat they would resort to the ancient method of ships grappling with each other and then the fighting taking place in the hatchways.I also think that in space most fighting might actually be hand to hand.

Well, I don't think entering ships will happen often and not by regular troops either. I think if ever it happens with police forces/action or the current piracy patrols.
Even on earth where it's safe there haven't been that many cases where ships were entered durin war time. It's simply easier to "vent" the air from the target ship and take it over without resistance.

No matter what kind of fighting it is you always want something fast, powerful and with range. With a (space)suit hand-to-hand isn't easy, especially with human power you can hardly harm someone wearing a suit.
With today's material like "Superfabric" knives can't overcome it easily.
Firing guns inside is dangerous so I don't think this tactic is desired either.

I don't know how practical lasers or phased weapons would be either for that matter.We still are left with the problem of how to fire a weapon in the vacuum of space then.

I was thinking on the topic that if it ever comes to it,that perhaps we might end up
using drones or some type of robots or androids when it comes to space combat.It might be a more logical approach,don't you think?

Well, energy weapons don't generate blasts when fired, but some (small) explosions do occur on target. These simply come from sudden change of energy state of the target matter. Sudden vaporization=expansion=explosion.
The only problem with firing a gunpowder weapon is not having good footing. There's no problem in the workings except if the weapon does rely on gravity. For example if the loading of rounds was (partly) relying on gravity like the German G11 (I think).

I think agility and dexterity is more important to go around in zero gravity than on Earth. And you need footing via magnets or suction (only in pressurized room). A safe solution would mean the bot or drone will have to be big or have long legs to reach at least 3 of the walls.
Flying bots are also possible. They can't aim that precisely unless they use a lot of trust to compensate for footing/gravity-stability.

The soldier in me thinks no matter what having some AI doing the (support) job is always good whether it's a drone or a missile. Even if it's only good for distracting as long as it buys some time and give the opportunity to win or survive is always better than nothing.

Another methode is to use a thermobaric weapon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms2sYa6yFRg @2:50
Simply said it's like creating and sending a blastwave through a bunker network.

Why does everyone have to say something along the lines of "IT CAN'T BE!" every time they come across
the enemy in Sci Fi space operas?

I think it's a script writer cliche.
On the other side a lot of people do wonder about things that aren't really news it a the time. Aside from not knowing there is the difference between everyone's world view and the reality. You simply get surprised for no reason when reality set in or forcing its way into your view.

But seriously, if we meet aliens, some things they know and can do are certainly beyond our imagination and understanding. I'm not saying magic but it may not be too far off.

Anyway, space is big, and depending on weapon/sensor range a certain number of ships are needed for defending a location. Forget the thought of front lines or borders. Space is too vast for that unless you do have really good FTL technology on the order of 20-30000x lightspeed.
So I kind of wonder if real higher level but less than star trek level space battle requires large fleets. On the other side large ships mean losing a lot easier, while being powerful. Smaller ships mean less losses but are weak. OK, I guess this goes into ship designs so I should stop.

On some propulsion (most important so far):

Warp is feasible.
Analysis thereof.
All good but how we actually do it is not within our technological reach nor do we even begin to have a clue....

Antimatter
It appears the final important formula given is wrong. :/
Since it requires like 20 levels derivatives I can't correct it. Not like I know all the steps taken anyway. It's not shown at all.

In the Lost In Space comic they explain how Alpha Control was able to develop FTL
for the Jupiter Project.Basically what it was was that they took a crashed alien ship and simply back engineered it or whatever you call it.
The comic also revealed what actually happened to the Jupiter 1(it was destroyed
on the launchpad with all hands).
But the point is that unless an alien spaceship politely deigns to crash into Earth
we might not really have a solid way of getting to warp or other FTL at the present time as our technology isn't where it can produce warp or any other FTL for space
flight.Of course there is always the alternative of some sort of gateway like
wormholes or sords.

Imho, whether it's FTL or gateway I'm pretty sure they are theoretically or technologically related, hence, one leads to the other.

Somewhat old report on stealth research of the blackhawk.

So they were working on stealth since at least 1978?
Sikorsky was involved in it?!..interesting.

Aside from the nazis' family of ... Horten Ho 229
Depending on how you look at it, the first generation (semi) stealth is considered to be the SR-71 Blackbird. Other say it's the u-2 but imho that rather an afterthought and upgrade of the latest version. The F117 being a true first generation stealth.

The U-2 was probably most infamous for Gary Powers being shot down over Soviet air space.I think it
was more high altitude than stealth.

Right.The black stealth modded u-2 came later perhabs just before the 80's. Dunno. Well, this is all depends rather on how you see it in terms of tech. Of course a bit of propaganda and/or advertisement is part of the myths. The B-2 is considered the 2nd generation based on being designed (and tooled) by CATIA, a french aircraft CAD software. It has smoothed outer hull. The F-22 & co. people want to call it a 3rd generation, but imho the improvements aren't that revolutionary. It's just based on better computation technology available today.
However, it is a 5th generation fighter for the all glass-cockpit(integrated & computerized). The next generation will(must) have laser weapons. It should be in the works now, but things are kind of silent. I guess cost and development will be increased/delayed a lot more than in the past.

Hmmm...getting all Star Wars there with the comment about laser weapons.
I wonder how they would work in all actuality.

Well, that's what's on the plans. The lasers are still a 100x times less powerful than needed. But you gotta remember it's still twenty years before a craft will be build for demonstration. Another 10-15 years before full production. The laser is going to be a mixed technology between chip, atom/nuclear/quantum physic related with some backup from the conventional chemistry of old.

I wonder if laser weapons would be more used to actually blind the enemy than as actual
weapons.You know shoot at the eyes of enemy pilots so that they wouldn't be able to fire back.