Dirt Cheap Planet Crackers

[BwapTED]

You know it, you love/hate it, and I'm asking about it now.

What are your thoughts on the old ''accelerate a rock/scout ship/whatever to near-light speeds and blow planets up" trick?


Is this more or less of a potential problem under specific versions of Traveller drives, in the several rulesets/editions of the game? If so, which ones?

 

[whartung]

It's always a problem in anything post Book 2, since Book 2 the ships aren't big enough.

Consider a typical traveller space scenario, where a ship accelerates at 1G for 1 turn. In the various games, a "turn" varies between 20 and 30 minutes.

So, 1G for 30 minutes, 1800 seconds.

9.8m/s^2 * 1800s = 17,640m/s which is 17.6Km/s

This meteor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor is told to have entered the atmosphere at about 20Km/s, and only massed ~13,000 tons. It airburst resulting in a 400-500 Kiloton explosion.

So, this with just a little bit over "1 turn" of acceleration.

Traveller ships can accelerate far faster, and for far longer. And Traveller ships can be much bigger.

This is "off the shelf" tech.

So, it's an ubiquitous potential problem.

 

[flykiller]

oh man, I thought this was going to be about some kind of cookie.

 

[flykiller]

What are your thoughts on the old ''accelerate a rock/scout ship/whatever to near-light speeds and blow planets up" trick?

we try not to have any thoughts about it. it's impossible to make it go away, and it's game destroying, so we just tip-toe around it and do other things.

 

[BwapTED]

oh man, I thought this was going to be about some kind of cookie.

The civilization-ending kind!

 

[Spartan159]

:nonono: :CoW: = :toast:

 

[kilemall]

I've made it an essential part of my setting rather then 'hope it goes away'.

The orbital O'neill colonies have a ring of rocks around them, since the colonies are already hardened to take solar flares and minor rock hits the debris from a 'small' hit is minor compared to a full-on hit.

My jumps also render ships vee zero at completion, no matter the initial vee. This is to satisfy my conception of what jump is, incorporate some tactical choices not available in Traveller normally, but also eliminate the jump in at 100D near-C and hit the planet move.

Beyond a certain point though, the incoming can be destroyed likely with one missile. It's a function of speed and detection warning and bringing that missile online. Too slow and it might not crack the planet but the missile might not destroy it, too fast and the near-C ship will be on the target before anyone can react.

Also, on something like a D starport, it may be that only the player's ship has the requisite armament to try and do something.

 

[creativehum]

You know it, you love/hate it, and I'm asking about it now.

What are your thoughts on the old ''accelerate a rock/scout ship/whatever to near-light speeds and blow planets up" trick?

Is this more or less of a potential problem under specific versions of Traveller drives, in the several rulesets/editions of the game? If so, which ones?

I'm a Book 2 starship guy, so it isn't a thing for me.

 

[aramis]

I'm a Book 2 starship guy, so it isn't a thing for me.

That's no preclusion unless you use only Bk2-77. See, 81 doesn't specify PP fuel is used as reaction mass...

 

[BwapTED]

That's no preclusion unless you use only Bk2-77. See, 81 doesn't specify PP fuel is used as reaction mass...

I have both, and '77 is starting to look better.

 

[Thanos]

Perhaps in the 3I this is considered under the no nukes rule?

 

[creativehum]

Perhaps in the 3I this is considered under the no nukes rule?

I think the issues is some nut job or group that doesn't care about the rules.

******

As for reactionless drives:

Book 2 (1981) doesn't specify either way, leaving it open as to how the drive works for any Referee. (The same way Jump Drives and Jump Space and more are open for the Referee to manage any way he wants.)

I am comfortable with reaction drives. I prefer them actually. I like the feel of them.

I am sure someone is about to leap to the keyboard to tell me all the ways the starships can't work efficiently without reactionless drives.

Trust me, I'm good as is. The rules as written provide a clear, colorful setting full of specific conditions where ships can land or take off from some planets, but not others, allowing for all sorts of interesting combinations of problem solving.

 

[aramis]

Bk2-77 fuel rates are such that you're pushing out FTL particles...

 

[creativehum]

In the same way some people are willing to handwave in reactionless drive technology, I'm willing to handwave in technology that will make the reaction drives work just fine with the rules as written.

That's fair, right? Because what bothers some people about fake future technology isn't going to bother other people. We all draw our lines somewhere.

I draw my lines at the convenience and fun of reaction drives.

And so, for some of us, we're good to go.

 

[BwapTED]

Perhaps in the 3I this is considered under the no nukes rule?

Indeed!

But if it can be done, presumably terrorists or hostile aliens would have done so.

That would make for an interesting setting, but I think the ease of making dirt cheap planet crackers strongly suggests that privately-owned starships either would not be allowed by governments or would be fitted with kill switches/autodestruct devices the Navy can trigger, captains subject to psionic conditioning, etc.

Otherwise, it's like giving a doomsday bomb to every tram freighter captain...


But a really wild and wooly setting could have private parties roaming space with WMD of this type. And some asteroid belts that used to be inhabited worlds.
Maybe 'pirate' simply means any vessel not registered to system authorities, with a working autodestruct that can be verified, etc.
Extreme suspicion prevails.

With every system that can build or buy starships having these super weapons at its disposal, a MAD situation develops. Nobody goes to war directly with another starfaring world. That's crazy. No, governments use mercs, also know as ''volunteers' to aid local insurgents.
And if there is no rebellion on the rival world? Hire some criminals to kick up a ruckus and call that a democratic/pious/workers' whatever rebellion against the "oppressive and illegitimate planetary regime."

PS-- I'm pretty sure I've read about a scenario with similar elements, maybe on Atomic Rockets or Charles Stross's blog.

 

[mike wightman]

At TL8 air/rafts are available - the CT explanation being null grav modules.

The maneuver drive appears at TL9, so why would it not involve some air/raft jiggery pokery handwavium?

My tiny brain has made the link to reducing inertial mass or put another way manipulation of the Higgs field. This allows the reaction drive to achieve the performance CT gives.

Works for me.

 

[BwapTED]

At TL8 air/rafts are available - the CT explanation being null grav modules.

The maneuver drive appears at TL9, so why would it not involve some air/raft jiggery pokery handwavium?

My tiny brain has made the link to reducing inertial mass or put another way manipulation of the Higgs field. This allows the reaction drive to achieve the performance CT gives.

Works for me.

Somebody, maybe you, posted an idea about a sort of gravitics-assisted ion drive, yes?

 

[mike wightman]

As to the topic of planet crackers.

In setting only the Ancients could do it - therefore the Vilani , Solomani, 3I etc lack the technology so there is some limit to the maneuver drive that prevents it.

Personaly I have always liked the TNE HEPlaR , but it requires the same inertial mass reduction handwave as above, or something similar.

 

[Whipsnade]

In setting only the Ancients could do it - therefore the Vilani , Solomani, 3I etc lack the technology so there is some limit to the maneuver drive that prevents it.

And the technology everyone since the Ancients presumably lacks is...

Spoiler:

... teleportation via pocket universes.

The canonical Ancient planet buster is a (sufficiently large) mass "falling" between two teleportation portals in the target's gravity field. The mass "falls" out of the top plate, crosses a certain distance, "falls" into the lower plate, is teleported to the top plate, and the process begins again.

The mass is supposed to keeping "falling" until it reaches a velocity within a whisker of c whereupon the bottom plate is switched off, the mass travels on, and the planet goes boom...

 

[mike wightman]

Somebody, maybe you, posted an idea about a sort of gravitics-assisted ion drive, yes?

Sounds like it could have been one of mine