Agility and the CT manuever drive

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by far-trader:
On a much smaller scale yes. I still haven't worked the numbers to see just how big a BANG it would be but it sounds like fun

The part of it that I like is it makes big laser guns work without magic (unless we need magic to keep the BANG part from destroying the ship).

I also like that you don't need a power plant running 24/7 to power a weapon you might only need for an hour once or twice a year as a merchie. And as a combat craft you don't waste that power that could be better used for agility or something else.

Hmmm, a bay weapon version, 50 or 100 tons of nuke powered laser

OOOOO, spinal version

I like it

Again from High Guard, if the jump capacitors can store such huge amounts of energy - bear in mind that a nuclear missile only inflicts 100 times its factor on a black globe, or 900 EP for a bay missile strike - I reasoned that part of the jump drive is a nuclear detonation confinement chamber that initiates the (insert either wormhole generation, gravitational implosion rift, jump laser effect) through a massive burst of energy.

So IMTU at least the tech is capable of handling small onboard nuclear detonations

 

[Fritz_Brown]

SO, now, a nuclear damper will prevent your lasers from firing, too!

Good to know.... (Argh!)

 

[mike wightman]

Only if you're close enough to use them - nuclear dampers don't have much in the way of range...

 

[mike wightman]

[aside]IMHO nuclear dampers are one of the Traveller technologies whose full implications haven't been really developed. The ability to modify nuclear binding energy, either to enhance it or to lower it, can have all sorts of interesting effects.
I prefer the original LBB4 description combined with the TNE rules, at least two nuclear damper stations are required on the ship - as far apart as possible.[/aside]

 

[Gnusam Netor]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Only if you're close enough to use them - nuclear dampers don't have much in the way of range...

What if you put them dampers on a missile?

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by Gnusam Netor:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Only if you're close enough to use them - nuclear dampers don't have much in the way of range...

What if you put them dampers on a missile?

</font>[/QUOTE]Going by the LBB4 description you'd need big missiles, and they'd have to work in pairs.

Hmm, two small craft, each with one part of the nuclear damper...

 

[Andrew Boulton]

"it sounds like fun"

Have you been talking to Ditzie?

"(unless we need magic to keep the BANG part from destroying the ship)."

We are talking about nuclear explosions...

"I also like that you don't need a power plant running 24/7 to power a weapon you might only need for an hour once or twice a year"

So use a small, dedicated PP just for the weapons.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
"it sounds like fun"

Have you been talking to Ditzie?

We went to the same school together, before it blew up

Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
"(unless we need magic to keep the BANG part from destroying the ship)."

We are talking about nuclear explosions...

Just teensy weensy ones

Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
"I also like that you don't need a power plant running 24/7 to power a weapon you might only need for an hour once or twice a year"

So use a small, dedicated PP just for the weapons.

Well yeah, but where's the fun in that

 

[Andrew Boulton]

There's no such thing as a teensy weensy nuke!

 

[far-trader]

True, today at least and for fission devices. Something on the order of 50kg total is the smallest.

Yet Traveller has 50kg total missiles that include a nuke warhead in addition to all the requirements needed for a fast long range missile (propulsion and guidance) so the warhead must be significantly smaller than 50kg so it's probably something other than a traditional fission nuke. Perhaps something like the fabled Red Mercury or some kind of fusion nuke.

 

[far-trader]

Oops, I was forgetting about the Davy Crockett. In the 1950's the US made a 23kg nuke warhead (total weapon 34.5kg) mortar/rocket. Range of 2km or 4km and a selectable yield of 10-250 tons. That would be about the smallest possible fission nuke.

 

[parmasson]

great! Let's set one off inside the ship!

 

[parmasson]

great! Let's set one off inside the ship!

 

[ditzie]

Originally posted by far-trader:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
"it sounds like fun"

Have you been talking to Ditzie?

We went to the same school together, before it blew up

</font>[/QUOTE]...and whose fault was that, hmmm?

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Even a yield of 10t is still 42GJ of energy!

 

[robject]

Ouch.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Oh, and if you've ever wondered what one ton of gunpowder going off under the House of Lords would've looked like...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/31/nfawkes31.xml

(sadly I've not tracked down a video yet)

 

[MrMorden]

Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
It's not that simple. You need proper control surfaces for high-performance atmospheric manoeuvering and supersonic speeds, which most small craft don't have. A good pilot might manage to dodge a missile, but don't count on it.

Not so fast. If the craft does not have aerodynamic surfaces, but *does* have the capability to vector its contra-grav propulsive force, then it can act the same as if it had control surfaces.

All control surfaces do is impart off-axis forces to the airframe; vectored contra-grav would do the exact same thing. In fact, at higher altitude the contra-grav craft could easily outmaneuver the aerodynamic one, as there would be less atmosphere for control surfaces to work against.

IMTU craft maneuver the same whether the do so using airframes or contra-grav for control changes.