[1e] Turret Weapons - Thoughts and House Rules

[kilemall]

My headcanon for sand intercepting beams is that energy weapons use capacitors as part of their firing process (since caps are better with instant spikes in power demand than a reactor), and the charging of those capacitors can be detected moments before the actual shot. Then it's more of a prediction of where the beams will need to be to intercept the ship, and putting sand in the way of the predicted path. The variable nature of both the to-hit roll and the absorption roll are based on how good those predictions are.

Not bad, if you use the Striker 250Mw laser design sequence there is definitely a capacitor in there. I just don’t think EMF from those things will be detectable that far away.

 

[Condottiere]

My headcanon for sand intercepting beams is that energy weapons use capacitors as part of their firing process (since caps are better with instant spikes in power demand than a reactor), and the charging of those capacitors can be detected moments before the actual shot. Then it's more of a prediction of where the beams will need to be to intercept the ship, and putting sand in the way of the predicted path. The variable nature of both the to-hit roll and the absorption roll are based on how good those predictions are.

 

[McPerth]

My headcanon for sand intercepting beams is that energy weapons use capacitors as part of their firing process (since caps are better with instant spikes in power demand than a reactor), and the charging of those capacitors can be detected moments before the actual shot. Then it's more of a prediction of where the beams will need to be to intercept the ship, and putting sand in the way of the predicted path. The variable nature of both the to-hit roll and the absorption roll are based on how good those predictions are.

While I agree with you in this about PLasers, I guess BLasers don't work like this, but they emit a continuous high power laser (though not as high as the short burst of a PLaser. Hence the better accuracy of the BLaser and the higher damage of the PLasers.

 

[TheDark]

While I agree with you in this about PLasers, I guess BLasers don't work like this, but they emit a continuous high power laser (though not as high as the short burst of a PLaser. Hence the better accuracy of the BLaser and the higher damage of the PLasers.

Based on real-world lasers, it's more plausible to me (YMMV) that a pulse laser is firing a few dozen pulses in a burst that lasts around a second, while a beam laser is emitting continuously for a second or two and then shutting down for a few seconds for a cooldown/recharge cycle (for neither the PLaser or BLaser is it "one shot per round," that's just an abstraction covering the overall effectiveness of a round of combat). A space combat round is six minutes. A laser firing continuously for six minutes is going to be extremely low-powered, because it has to draw multiple times as much energy from the reactor as it emits*, and its waste heat has to be kept under control to avoid melting the laser. Those drawbacks can likely be mitigated with technological improvements, but a continuous laser is going to have such low energy density compared to an intermittent beam laser or a pulse laser that it should do no damage at all, because there's so little energy coming in that it's easy to dump with the rest of the ship's waste energy.

*The 100-kW laser recently tested on JS Asuka probably needs 300 to 400 kW of energy to fire. The ISS uses an average of 80 kW to support its six crew and scientific functions, so somewhere around 20-25% as much power as that single anti-drone laser.

 

[McPerth]

Well, not that I know much about real world lasers, but my take on the different lasers is a little different:

• PLasers: they emit a very low power targeting lasser while charging the capacitors, and when they have locked on this targeting laser, they emit a burst of high powered one. Of course, as you say, they shot several of those each round, and the single roll is teh tota leffect.
• Blasers: they emit a continuous high powered laser, more alike a torch, so to say. With 250 MW power used on them, even if this contiuous beam is only about 25% efficient (as you tell about RW ones), this would be about 60 MW, I guess enough to do considerable damage.

This would explain the better accuracy of the BLasers (as any momentary impact can damage) against the increased damage of the PLasers (as they fire higher enerby pulses from the capacitors).

As per heat, of course BLasers would neet a better dissipation systems (I don't know which ones, as I'm not a physics expert, and none of us can tell what higher TLs than current one may bring), This could explain the higher cost of BLasers (despite the PLasers needing capacitors, that would neither be free).

As for the effect this may have on Sand Casters, if this is accepted, they may be fired as soon as the sensors detect the targeting lasers of a PLaser on the ship (albeit, as lasers travel at light speed, I'm not sure they will hav time to fire and siperse the sand before it switches to high power burst and hit the ship), but cannot do anything against BLasers unless they are fired preventivelly, as CT:LBB2 showed, or as MgT HG uses them, not being fired against a specific attack/barrage...

Nonetheless, see that if so, they could also affect outcoming fire...

 

[Condottiere]

The problem is, that ordnance based weapon systems, have a clear amount of ammunition that they use up, for any given window of time.

Energy based weapon systems, have to tap into the spacecraft's power pool.

Energy allocated for each round, would have to be divided by each instance of unleashed bolting during that round.

Going by current performance(s), pulse lasers are twice as powerful as beam lasers, but only half as accurate.

 

[kilemall]

Sure that close, but 200000km is still close range in CT, that’s a bit much. MgT sensor ranges might be more reasonable.

 

[TheDark]

Well, not that I know much about real world lasers, but my take on the different lasers is a little different:

• PLasers: they emit a very low power targeting lasser while charging the capacitors, and when they have locked on this targeting laser, they emit a burst of high powered one. Of course, as you say, they shot several of those each round, and the single roll is teh tota leffect.
• Blasers: they emit a continuous high powered laser, more alike a torch, so to say. With 250 MW power used on them, even if this contiuous beam is only about 25% efficient (as you tell about RW ones), this would be about 60 MW, I guess enough to do considerable damage.

This would explain the better accuracy of the BLasers (as any momentary impact can damage) against the increased damage of the PLasers (as they fire higher enerby pulses from the capacitors).

As per heat, of course BLasers would neet a better dissipation systems (I don't know which ones, as I'm not a physics expert, and none of us can tell what higher TLs than current one may bring), This could explain the higher cost of BLasers (despite the PLasers needing capacitors, that would neither be free).

As for the effect this may have on Sand Casters, if this is accepted, they may be fired as soon as the sensors detect the targeting lasers of a PLaser on the ship (albeit, as lasers travel at light speed, I'm not sure they will hav time to fire and siperse the sand before it switches to high power burst and hit the ship), but cannot do anything against BLasers unless they are fired preventivelly, as CT:LBB2 showed, or as MgT HG uses them, not being fired against a specific attack/barrage...

Nonetheless, see that if so, they could also affect outcoming fire...

I feel like that makes sand really terrible for ACS, since now the only thing it affects are pulse lasers. It would always be better to take an extra weapon over a sandcaster, since sand won't protect against anything that can hit at Long or Distant range (and only Medium if High Guard is in play and Long Range or Variable Range Pulse Lasers can be installed). More missiles or BLasers for missile defense will do more for a ship than a sandcaster.

For real-world stuff, I only know a little about lasers, but the rule of thumb is that a 100 MJ laser hit is roughly equivalent to 25 kilograms of TNT. If we allow the 250 MW laser to be 40% efficient, it'll deal 100 MJ per second. Since (in MgT) a beam laser does equivalent damage to a missile, one could decide that the TNT equivalent of a missile warhead, divided by 25 kilograms, is the number of seconds a BLaser needs to be on target. I'm not sure I'd be entirely comfortable with that since it relies on both a conversion from CT to MgT and assuming real-world physics are in play, but it might work in someone's universe.

Back in 2011, the US Navy estimated that a 1 MW laser with a 67% cycle time (i.e. firing for 2 seconds, down for 1 second, rinse, repeat) would require 10-20 MW of power and 1,400 short tons of cooling systems. Improved tech will reduce both the power and cooling needed, but it gives an idea of just how much cooling a continuous laser needs, especially since this is for atmospheric use and there'll be some natural cooling from the air. Dropping the cycle time would also drop both the power and cooling needs, since they'd have more time to act between shots. Traveller ships do seem to have exotic ways of dumping waste heat, so it can work out with high cycle rates, that's just not how I want my universe to be.