Plasma / Fusion Space Weapons for T5?

[Scott Martin]

Direct Fire weapons niches

Wol:

The Niches that I am thinkng about (and the discussion I am trying to promote) are:

Lasers: Long range weapons systems with fairly low absolute damage, but high penetration and compact size. Viable / common for PC scale ships

PAW's (including the Meson Kill-o-zap ray) Larger systems will have long ranges, moderate penetration and moderate absolute damage. Unlikely to be present on PC scale ships, since these are best suited to Bay or Spinal weaponry

Energy Weapons: Pathetic (at starship scale) range, Enormous damage and poor penetration. Used for close (read "Planetary") defence and to give fighters a weapons system capable of damaging a cap ship. Unlikely to be present on PC-scale ships, but an option if the players really want a "knife range" weapons system.

Missiles (Included for completeness, and a long conversation in their own right) Long range weapons system, gobs-o-damage, likely to be seen on PC-Scale ships. If Marc goes with fusion power plants small enough to power a robot, then expect missiles to go back to the CT "50 kg" size.

With Energy weapons, I'm leaning towards a notation like (20 x30) so a penetration value of 20, and anything that penetrates multiply the damage by 30. I also think that they should have fairly sharp penetration slopes, so a close assault by a fighter would be cause for alarm by a cap ship, but it would have to be *really* close, so something like:

Short ----- Med ----- Long ----- Extreme
200 (x5) --- 50 (x10) --- 15 (x20) --- 3 (x40)

Giving max damage against unarmoured targets of:
Short --- Med --- Long --- Extreme
1,000 --- 500 --- 300 --- 120

Scott Martin

 

[robject]

Hey... I like that notation. I could look at the stats for various weapons and know how they rate against each other at a glance.

 

[Antony]

Then the problem becomes how to get the fighter close enough to fire the energy weapons without getting blown out of the ether.

 

[Zparkz]

And you will focus an X-Ray laser *how* without gravitic focusing?

The whole point with X-ray beams is that the short wave length disperses far less than beams with other frequencies.

 

[Scott Martin]

Anthony: Yes, then it becomes a game of "PT Boats vs Battlewagons" and you'll note that PT boats were not extensively used in the open ocean...

Zparkz:
I'm not disputing that X-ray lasers are your best option for deep space engagements. My issue is that the only way to focus this type of laser destroys (catastrophically) the focusing medium. As a result, the *only* way to focus an X-ray laser and not destroy your ship at the same time is to use grav focusing (or monopole focusing, buit that's another thread entirely)

Regardless, unles you are using some sort of (energy sucking) handwavium and using something that is not a physical material to focus your beam (which in Traveller is gravitic focusing) you *cannot* build an X-ray laser that *isn't* grav focused.

Scott Martin

 

[Wol]

I must be a bit confused... I thought that's why TNE used gravitic focus for ship mounted lasers and self destructing X-ray for missiles.

cheers

WOl

 

[atpollard]

Is there some absolute physical law that prevents a material from being transparent to x-ray lasers and useable as a lens or is it just a matter of there being no material yet discovered that has these properties.

LEDs and photo-voltaic cells were "magic-tech" until someone discovered the compounds that made them a reality. I am just wondering if x-ray lasers are fundamentally different.

 

[Anthony]

Is there some absolute physical law that prevents a material from being transparent to x-ray lasers and useable as a lens or is it just a matter of there being no material yet discovered that has these properties.

It's a matter of ionization energies. No material composed of atoms as we know them could be usable as an X-ray lens, though it's possible various degenerate materials could be (for that matter, bonded SD is a plausible choice in that role).

 

[Ishmael]

how about some material that is a one-shot lens for x-ray lasers?
It would be destroyed by its use as a lens.
It would also limit 'ammunition' ( number of shots ) for x-ray lasers
If we allow fusion guns that don't just blow themselves up, why not put a lasing rod in the barrel and have a nuke det laser for free with fusion guns?
( imagine a lase rod feed system for rapid fire guns on starwars type fighters )

 

[Scott Martin]

Put a cork in it?

by putting a "lasing" lens in a fusion gun you would (by definition) be reducing the amount of energy on target. If what you wanted was an X-Ray laser, then why not install one in the first place?

You would also have issues with the "containment" of the burst, since I see plasma / fusion weapons as a nuclear reaction inside a containment vessel with a "hole" at one end (much as HEPLAR is described, and a HEPLAR drive should have similar damage effects, but that's another thread) do you "really" want to put a "cork" in the end of your gun before firing it?

I'm seeing energy weapons (Plasma / Fusion guns) as short ranged weapons with a lot of "punch", while Lasers (and especially X-Ray Lasers) would be used at longer "stand-off" ranges for deep space engagements.

Scott Martin

 

[Ishmael]

I would rather put " a cork in it" and have a nuke det laser that makes more sense to me than the handwave of magic-gravitics. Besides, how would a lase rod make fusion guns 'less' likely to simply blow up like a h-bomb?

....hmmmmm...for fgmp guns...the lase rod might make it work more like a 'plaser' as described in 2300 where the laser evacuates a 'tube' through the atmosphere for the plasma to shoot through...doubt it makes sense in real life, but it sounds cool. probably look like a laser straight lightning bolt.

to me..space energy weapons are like sailing ship carronades. Big heavy blaster thingies that you have to get really close to use.

 

[GypsyComet]

I'm seeing energy weapons (Plasma / Fusion guns) as short ranged weapons with a lot of "punch", while Lasers (and especially X-Ray Lasers) would be used at longer "stand-off" ranges for deep space engagements.

Which was pretty much their roles the last time the Plasma and Fusion weapons were mountable on starships.

The last time this came up in a game I was in, we were looking at putting a AFV-grade Fusion Gun in a pop-down inside the cargo lock. Nothing puts a stop to a game of doorbell ditch faster

 

[Commander Drax]

Starships are impervious to small kinetic kill fragments. No matter what the real world math and science say, the fact that your starship can accelerate for a week at 1 G (refueling at a far gas giant)and not be destroyed by striking a golf ball size rock just floating in space means that they are protected from small objects traveling at high velocity.

With respect to the issue of "hitting in the first place": what is the diameter of a laser beam/pulse? How far away does it hit the target? A stream of hypervelocity projectiles should have no more difficulty hitting a missile than a laser pulse would. In the real world, the US Navy already uses radar aimed cannon to intercept anti-ship missiles.

I don't agree that starships are impervious to small kinetic fragments, it's always been a staple of the game that starships are vulnerable to micrometeroid damage, even though its not that heavily focused on. Also the rules and assumption of any traveller game are not meant to be realistic, just a 'reasonable' compromise between reality and the most prevalent science fiction literature.