Well we seemed to have this handled at TL 8: http://www.raytheon.com/capabilitie...ts/content/rtn_rms_ps_excalibur_datasheet.pdf
I don't think it is an issue at TL 10-15...
Technology Discussion (Spun off from Realistic Missiles)
- Thread starter HG_B
- Start date
Well we seemed to have this handled at TL 8: http://www.raytheon.com/capabilitie...ts/content/rtn_rms_ps_excalibur_datasheet.pdf
I don't think it is an issue at TL 10-15...
Solved? no. At least not according to the current issues with warheads failing in the field. (Dept of the Army has a whitepaper circulating on just that issue; it got leaked to the press in the last couple weeks. Heard about it on PBS.) Semi-reliable... perhaps. But I also know Raytheon has an extensive history of exaggeration on reliability claims. ("Outright lies," according to the late Sen. Stevens...)
Further, the transient G-load on such short times isn't nearly as much an issue as with sustained thrust, as on missiles. I can put 1000 G's on connector for a millisecond, and not have it unseat; I put 10 on the same one for half an hour, and it's likely to disconnect. The Arty round has to survive a total delta-V of 600-800m/s. (Admittedly, several hundred G's, since it achieves that in 3m, and a fraction of a second... but given the short impulse, not as much an issue.)
Even the low-end combat endurance of 6G for 500 seconds (1 round) is 30,000m/s. A sidewinder is a total of 1000m/s... and the stock 6G 18GT CT missile, given the 2000s round, 60x3x2000 = 360,000m/s
So, you don't think that by TL 15 (the difference between cavemen & us) it wouldn't be solved?
No. Because TL 15 isn't the same as the difference between us and TL 10, even.
When one looks in detail at the TL tables, the changes in energy density, propulsion tech, weapons tech, and computer tech are high in TL1 to TL8, and slow down drastically between TL10-16. (TL17+ accelerates this again.)
If we were to use a more consistent scaling, TL9 would be unchanged, current TL's 10-13 would be AlternateTL 10, and TL14-16 would be ATL 11, with TL 17+ being reduced by 5 each.
It's a matter of focus. Traveller puts lots of detail into its primary game-emphasis, and makes that emphasis fully 1/4th of the defined technology scale (see TTB, p86-87, or B3, p.14-15... defining TL's to 21; TL 10-15 is 6/21, more than 1/4th).
Note that this isn't only my opinion, either... It matches the GURPS tech scale pretty well.
To give a visual aid:
0____1____2____3____4___5___6__7__8___9___A_B_C_D_E_F__G____H_____J_____K______L_____M
Rather than:
0___1___2___3___4___5___6___7___8___9___A___B___C___D___E___F___G___H___J___K___L___M
Last edited:
So... you're saying that the difference between the age of sail/steam and now, that same TL difference into the future we wouldn't have solved it?
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
I was thinking jamming wouldn't be an issue given it would be near proximity transceivers that could be shielded from external issues. But I'm just tossing ideas to be shot down
Optical vibration, good point. Shaking between the transceiver mounts could well interfere with signal. I wonder if a wider beam transceiver could compensate?
Yes, I figured if anything fiber optics would be less able to withstand the issues than solid circuits* so I was more thinking just a closely mated optical transceiver pair, not actual optical cabling. But again just an amateur's musing
*Though Corning's new glass, well, not that new actually but just now finding uses might fix that. There was a news item recently, name of it escapes me, very strong, very flexible, and of course very expensive
We haven't "Solved" most of the age of sail mechanical problems. We've made them less, but not solved, no. The nature of the universe hasn't changed. Hell, we still have the same issues we did as cavemen: getting food and staying warm. Those haven't been solved, but we've made it easier to do both. (Well, actually, getting food and shelter is harder now, in terms of hours spent per week to accuire food and shelter) The same concerns are still the same concerns: thrust, drag, mechanical strength of steel, fabric and wood.
Vibration and acceleration force stresses are the fundamental reason for material failure. Unless you can negate those (which Traveller doesn't until TL25+; see T5), you still have the fundamental issue of vibration and acceleration resulting in material failure at TL 16 as at TL 6. The ability to design for it won't solve it; it will remain a fundamental issue.
Last edited:
Right! :rofl:
Like I intimated. This will be solved after a few thousand years of tech advancement.
No, they can not be solved (made non-issues) until one ceases to use material systems.
As long as the system is physical, acceleration tolerances are going to be an issue.
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
Strikes me you guys have a difference of opinion over the word 'solved'.
Aramis is going for solved = 'made a non-issue', and HG_B is going for solved = 'rendered inconsequential' or 'workaround found'.
IMO, some 'solution' (HG_B definition) should be figured out by TL15, if not well before.
Aramis is going for solved = 'made a non-issue', and HG_B is going for solved = 'rendered inconsequential' or 'workaround found'.
IMO, some 'solution' (HG_B definition) should be figured out by TL15, if not well before.
Not quite. It's going to remain a primary factor, period; it can't be rendered inconsequential. The workarounds are solid-block tech, which generally is not how Traveller TL15 is depicted; TL18+, perhaps. But if it's user servicable, it's got issues with connectors, and connectors are the weak point.