Disintegrators

[TheDS]

From the reading about Dampers, it looks to me like Disintegrators would probably be an outgrowth of Damper technology.

Somewhere in here, we were talking about using Dampers to inhibit enemy fusion reactors, and the Gilded Lilly adventure has a scene in which something like that actually happens, though not in a starship combat scenario. I believe it was proposed that reactors probably have their own Dampers to reduce reactor size.

Since the description of Dampers says it can strengthen or weaken atomic bonds via strong/weak force, it occurred to me later that on a larger scale, with a larger range, Dampers could be used to disrupt enemy hulls.

Just something that popped into my head I thought I'd share.

 

[mike wightman]

It was first mentioned way back in LBB4 Mercenary that at high TLs damper technology is weaponised into disintegrators.

The damper is later developed into a disintegrator weapon, beginning at tech level 16.

 

[aramis]

From the reading about Dampers, it looks to me like Disintegrators would probably be an outgrowth of Damper technology.

Somewhere in here, we were talking about using Dampers to inhibit enemy fusion reactors, and the Gilded Lilly adventure has a scene in which something like that actually happens, though not in a starship combat scenario. I believe it was proposed that reactors probably have their own Dampers to reduce reactor size.

Since the description of Dampers says it can strengthen or weaken atomic bonds via strong/weak force, it occurred to me later that on a larger scale, with a larger range, Dampers could be used to disrupt enemy hulls.

Just something that popped into my head I thought I'd share.

Note that Dampers can be used to increase or decrease nuclear force strengths. If you hit a fission warhead with a damper that decreases the binding force, the critical mass goes down, and it goes *B*O*O*M* early.¹ If you hit a laser initiated fusion bomb with one that increases the binding force, it generates MORE energy when it cooks, because it's more fusions per unit time.

At TL12, the fusion improvements are probably dampers... with a 10:1 or lower range:separation ratio... likewise TL15 improvements are probably better dampers... set to enhance fusion (but that also reduces fission).

Likewise, a TL13+ fission plant probably is entirely subcritical masses... but the dampers lower the critical mass by increasing the emission/decay rate, and thus, if the damper fails, the decay drops to thermopile levels.


1: if you decrease the binding force, you lower the critical mass - and once a pile of fissionable is at or above critical mass, it can chain react rather than simply radioactively decay....

 

[McPerth]

See that in MT tables (RM, page 98, the only version I know to include disintegrators) dampers are quite effective defense against disintegrators...

 

[Otto Harkaman]

So could you make a Disintegrator torpedo/missile?

 

[McPerth]

So could you make a Disintegrator torpedo/missile?

IIRC dampers need two different emiters, and its potency is related to the distance among them. So, I'd say no (at least if based on dampers).

 

[atpollard]

IIRC dampers need two different emiters, and its potency is related to the distance among them. So, I'd say no (at least if based on dampers).

I'll take a shot at conceptualizing a 'damper technology based' Disintegrator Missile, and leave it to others to either shoot holes in the idea or crunch the actual numbers:

The missile fires with two or three rocket nozzles that not only provide forward momentum, but also generate a stabilizing spin (like a rifle bullet). When the target reaches 'detection range' for the warhead and the missile has made its final course adjustment and begun its actual attack run, the warhead splits and two (or more as needed) emitters are deployed on long tethers by the centrifugal force of the rotating missile. Once the emitters reach maximum separation, they activate and emit the disintegration field directly ahead at the intended target.

So that's my 2 TL before introduction, theoretical, pre-prototype proof-of-concept design.

 

[whartung]

The missile fires with two or three rocket nozzles that not only provide forward momentum, but also generate a stabilizing spin (like a rifle bullet).

eh? Wut?

I'm no eidetic, nor do I have an encyclopedic knowledge of Missile is theory and practice, but I've never heard of a spin stabilized missile (I mean, maybe a firework, if that…). As I understand they either use fin stabilization, or internal gyros.

The Stinger missile spins, but not for stabilization, rather it used the spin for maneuver, as it only had two fins. As it was spinning, it would adjust the fins to turn "left/right" or "up/down" when the fins were in the proper position on the missile during flight.

I would think any spin fast enough to stabilize anything would add extraneous g forces to the internals of the missile, likely more than a designer would want to deal with.

 

[Theophilus]

So, would a RAP round for a G6 canon be a spin stabilized missile?
(Rocket Assist Projectile)
Or just an artillery shell?

 

[Theophilus]

Well, you got me to pull out some reference books.

How about the Chinese Type 81 multiple rocket system. Follow on to the Type 63 series. fires spin stabilized rockets.

Or the Czech M51 mrs. same thing, spin stabilized.

 

[whartung]

Rather interesting thread on spin stabilization.

http://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?5376-Spin-stabilization

Satellites appear to use it often as well (which makes sense).

Guess it just comes down to how fast of a spin is necessary, and what the trade offs are vs gyros (as fins tend to work rather poorly in vacuum…).

 

[atpollard]

Just a subtle clarification, the 'spin' was less about providing stabilization to the missile in flight (although it will do that too) ... and more about providing the centrifugal force to hold the 'emitters' at the end of tethers once the warhead deploys and is ready to fire. McPerth set an initial criteria that "emitters" needed to have separation in order to function and the further the better. My hypothetical response was deploying the emitters at the end of a 0.5 km tether (placing them 1 km apart which should be more than enough). The idea was inspired by some of those Early Space Station concepts with a Geminii Capsule on a tether.

 

[McPerth]

Just a subtle clarification, the 'spin' was less about providing stabilization to the missile in flight (although it will do that too) ... and more about providing the centrifugal force to hold the 'emitters' at the end of tethers once the warhead deploys and is ready to fire. McPerth set an initial criteria that "emitters" needed to have separation in order to function and the further the better. My hypothetical response was deploying the emitters at the end of a 0.5 km tether (placing them 1 km apart which should be more than enough). The idea was inspired by some of those Early Space Station concepts with a Geminii Capsule on a tether.

And what size will this missile be, if it needs to have two damper projectors (with the poser for them), the tether to hold them 0.5 km apart each and the propulsion (incluiding guide) system?

 

[atpollard]

And what size will this missile be, if it needs to have two damper projectors (with the poser for them), the tether to hold them 0.5 km apart each and the propulsion (including guide) system?

What size is a damper projector?

My gut feeling is that this will not fit in a turret missile launcher ... more like a large torpedo.
So just a WAG, but let's scale the 1 dT standard missile launcher up to fit 3 'disintegration missiles' in a 50 dTon bay ...

Q. what size will this missile be?
A. About 50 x the size of a standard turret missile. [Guess = 12 or 13 dTons]

 

[McPerth]

What size is a damper projector?

IDK in TNE.

IN CT;HG, the mínimum size (factor 4, TL 14) is 8 dtons and costs 30 MCr (and needs 40 ep to work)

In MT, a TL 15 damper may be as small as 10 dtons (factor 7), while the optimized one is 16 kl (about 1.25 dton) and factor 1. Costs are 30 MCr for the 10 dtons one and 35 for the optimized one, and energy needs are 17500 and 750 Mw respectively

In MgT:CB, a nuclear damper is tl 12, 50 dtons and 50 MCr (this can be altered by HG rules according to TL).

But I guess the one needed to act as such disintegrator should be more potent tan those defensive ones....

And I'm not sure how long will it take for dampers to unstabilize the atomic nuclei to fusión/fission or to disintegration. This will be improtant to calculate the power needs and howl ong must the missile be in place to afect a ship.

And see that missiles this size would be quite vulnerable to point defenses...

 

[mike wightman]

It may be worth taking a look at the original rules in LBB4 and their interpretation via Striker.

You need two projectors, range at TL13 is 100 x separation distance, at TL14 and 15 range is 1000 x separation distance.

Mass varies by TL: TL13 42t, TL13 14t, TL15 8t. Volume in cubic metres is equal to mass in tons.

Power input is 250MW = 1 HG2 EP.

Note that these are battlefield devices hence their higher TL than those available to ships.

So assuming the TL15 damper forms the basis for our missile you are looking at about a 2-3 dt package.

 

[mike wightman]

Here's a thought - build the projectors into small fighters/drones and use them to boil off the armour from a warship. They would have to attack in pairs.