AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
I'm not familiar with that, but it does sound like you don't have a problem. As long as the target moves in nice predictable orbits you can hit them at any distance and speed.
Rail Gun for Space weapon?
- Thread starter pendragonman
- Start date
pendragonman
Absent Friends Margrave
Chuck Gannon uses as much real orbital mechanics and vector physics as he can and still be a sci fi genre series.
Ranges are not actually specified in space. "In Range" or not. Several times the rail gun launches projectiles on ballistic courses using ammunition like flechette rounds to launch clouds that either intercept the target or the targets ROV's by vector motion. Since ships under thrust build up a vector of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of meters per second, significant change of vectors in short periods of time are difficult under the ~4-6 gravities of acceleration the ships exhibit in the books. With typical pre combat launches of clouds ~10 minutes prior to direct engagement ranges, projecting a potential region for such a ballistic cloud can be done on a TI-35 calculator.
The point here is vector physics are his dominant feature of space combat. Basic Multivariate Calculus.
But it does also imply that space combat ranges are what we Trav people would call "short".
If it helps there is anecdotal evidence of rail gun rounds approaching a plasma state when traveling the short range of ground support targeting from a NOE position.
Last edited:
I can't speak to the plasma/fusion weapons, mostly as I don't give them second thought on starships.
Meson guns are light speed weapons, with particles wrapped in handwavium.
The simple problem with rail guns are the painful realities of velocity and distance, and the impracticalities of such in a world with the other existing weapons.
The "standard" suite of Traveller weapons operate over vast distances, 10's - 100's of thousands of kilometers. At those ranges, even light speed weapons are "ballistically" targeted, when aiming at a moving target, you gotta lead 'em a little.
Particle physics and manipulation of the electromagnetic spectrum are all standard tropes in Sci Fi gaming and, as a general rule, we don't have to worry so much about the "real" physics involved.
But start trying to accelerate masses, of "dumb" ordnance, at velocities enough to be at all effective at the nominal combat ranges of the other weapons, and now the "real" physics start to be a "real" problem.
If in your TU you want to limit ships to closing to a couple of kilometers and "let fly" with the equivalent of black powder weapons, then that's fine. But if you wish to compete and be compatible with the current universe, it's quite a stretch, even for Traveller.
Hate to point out that Slug throwers in Space combat are part of T5. As turret weapons. Railguns in bays.
As for the Standard set of Traveller space ranges y'all need to pick a set. As every time the issue is touched the ranges and time scale changes.
Note, Railguns, Plasma & Fusion guns, and Particle Accelerators all depend on the same electromagnetic forces to operate. So I am at a loss why one can operate and not another.... Or why not use the same Handwavium to allow them to operate as the other?
An Azhanti, being a 60000 dtons ship, is 84 floors long. Assuming 3 m per flooris nearly 250 m long, and it's not too large a ship. As config 1 is quite usual for ships (as meson defense), I don't see a 450 m long ship to be so rare...
For a 3 to 5 KTd ship, not all that big. just narrow.
445m long 3000 Td Cone is 19 m diameter base... (actually, 3004 td)
A 445m long cylinder at 3000 Td is 11m diameter (actually over by 20 Td. Which one loses rounding the nose).
The Saturn V stack can be considered a 110m tall 11m diameter.
More sanely, a 5000Td Pyramid can be about 21.75x21.75x445m which is a 20.5x1x1, or we can go 445x43x10 (4555 Td) and add some superstructure.. a roughly 45x4x1 flattened pyramid...
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Not rare or strange at all, but by TNE RAW a long length of 450 m means the ship is over 100000 dT.
The spinal of a battleship is not what I would call a bay-sized weapon.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Such a ship would be impractical and un-canonical.
A ship with extreme dimensions would require much more framework, hence less have payload, and have an extremely large moment of inertia, hence be difficult to turn, hence have lousy agility.
Not that that has to matter to you, but your ships are fairly heavily house ruled, and that deserves at least a footnote.
P.S. What is a Kelvin-Tesla-deci? :devil:
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
We have been able to do that since MT but with extremely limited range?
What is the range of those slug-throwers in T5?
Canon does not prevent unusual shapes... 40:x:1 is a bit thin; 10:x:1 is reasonable, but CT allows for "Needle" hulls (bk 5), and Mongoose doesn't specify hull thicknesses.
Only if you're in the micromanagement that is FF&S do you worry about armor thickness...
Not being an expert in weapons systes (to say the least), I accept the possibility of this eing a dumb question, but, would it be posible to have a circular accelerator for the "bullet" and then release it agains the enemy, as a synchrotron, more or less like as a non-spinal PA is said to work in JTAS #13?
If this is possible, this would allow smaller weapons, at a cost in ROF (though probably range will keep being relatively short).
If this is possible, this would allow smaller weapons, at a cost in ROF (though probably range will keep being relatively short).
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Agreed, but within reason.
None of the classic canon examples we have go above 5:1? You might sell me on 10:1, but never 40:1.
TNE restricts Needle config to roughly 10:1.
This is not about armour thickness.
A long narrow structure is inherently weak and ungainly
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
A synchrotron, or the simpler cyclotron below, uses a strong magnetic field to make the charged particle move in a circle (or spiral) while it is accelerated.
To do the same with a solid slug we would have to generate a stupendous gravity field so that the slug moved in an orbit around the centre.
Centripetal acceleration is a = v² / r so to make something circle at a 1 m radius at 0.1c we would need to accelerate it by 30000000² / 1 ≈ 1015 m/s² or 1014 G. No matter would withstand that, so the weapon would collapse before it got a shot off.
But "muzzle" speed does not need to be so high, if you intend a short range wapon, and, on a ay, I guess the radius could be higher. As the acceleration build up, you'd need less voume tan a spinal.
How many Gs could the matrials sustain, and to what speed could this accelerate the slug with a 10 m radius?
Could this be enough to make an effective weapon (even if a short ranged one, due to accuracy problems)?
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
In a bay we might get r = 5 m. With a muzzle speed of 100 km/s we would get a = 100000² / 5 ≈ 109 m/s² or about 108 G. Still way to much...
I don't know what we get a complex machine to withstand (1000 G?), but a bullet is subjected to roughly 105 G.
50,000 km. Which is the range of a bunch of the Turret weapons.
Mind you that I haven't been arguing for long ranged weapons, just a place at the table. As my focus is on Adventure scale class ships operating in a near world setting.
40:1 is used in several fictional series. The Super Star Destroyers of Star Wars being the immediate 1st to come to mind. About 40:8:1 pyramid.
The Discovery from 2001 also comes to mind. The 16m sphere gives 9:1 overall... but the bulk of the structure is about 4m cross section, giving its 141m about 35:1.
Those kinds of shapes are not untoward... and are the kinds of shapes I use in my Small Ship Universes.
If one needs a 100 Td spinal, one can readily get it out to 400+m on 5000Td, by using shapes that are long.
Strength isn't vital in all contexts, either. ANd if we use gravitic thrust... put a pull node beside each end on opposite sides and she "falls freely" into a rotation. Strength at that point is mostly about the need for centripetal force. Typical cables have ratios well past 100:1...
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Mongoose mandates that spinal mounts are maximum half of a hull.
Technically, I would assume that applying pressure along the stretched dimension it should be easier to break the keel.
Technically, I would assume that applying pressure along the stretched dimension it should be easier to break the keel.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
An Executor is about a billion Dt (?) and accelerates at over 1000 G, at short it is not a Traveller ship. Star Wars isn't famed for worrying about anything but looking cool.
No Traveller drive negate inertia.
Or if you prefer, the end of a 500 m ship has to move ~393 m to turn 90°, whereas the end of a 50 m ship only has to move ~39 m. At a constant acceleration moving 39 m is much faster than moving 393 m.
(And if anyone cares: By SSOM ships turns by spinning up or down gyros.)
And how difficult is it to bend or twist a cable?
You can of course do whatever you like in your game, but if you use bays as 400 m spinals in 5000 Dt ships it is a house-rule.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Every Traveller ship since Kinunir was written up includes inertial/acceleration compensators in the fluff text which actually do negate inertia...
Question is do these magic devices affect the structural integrity of the hull or do they only affect the interior?
