What is the advantage of installing a nuclear damper turret/barrette over a laser turret/barbette? The damper seems to use similar (or more, at lower tech levels) power, and cost slightly more. In terms of missile intercepting, the damper seems worse: you can use a laser at long (>0 hexes) range, and if the missile has a fast closing velocity, it's probably easier to hit with a laser.
Nuclear Dampers
- Thread starter Tupper
- Start date
In our games we noticed this so house ruled the NDs so that they could target all incoming nuclear weapons coming from a particular bearing number in the round unlike lasers which had to individually target. To achieve this you had to have a minimum of two NDs able to fire into that bearing (a hang over from Striker I where you needed 2 projector vehicles). WE also used the rate of fire modifiers which were (from memory) in the back of the Striker II book.
snrdg082102
SOC-14 1K
Hello Tupper,
Until now I've always thought nuclear dampers as being mounted in the same manner as those in CT and MT. The antenna or at least the beam would be pointed at the target using the beam pointers..
Until now I've always thought nuclear dampers as being mounted in the same manner as those in CT and MT. The antenna or at least the beam would be pointed at the target using the beam pointers..
Having had some time to reflect since I originally posted the question, I can see three appeals of the damper:
1. It's lightweight. While it may have the same *volume* as a turret, its mass is less, and that means that there's less thrust required from the manoeuvre drive to support it, which implies a smaller manoeuvre drive, and (more importantly from a volume perspective, less fuel to be carried).
2. It needs less crew. For a group of lasers to target separate missiles, they need individual crew (an MFD can only direct them against one target). In contrast, an MFD can direct a group of Nuclear Dampers (just like it can direct multiple missiles separately) and therefore one crew member can (usefully) man multiple Nuclear Dampers. Again, this means they have a smaller footprint on the ship.
3. [This is slightly lawyerly] In Battle Rider, Nuclear Dampers are described as being targeted at missiles that survive laser fire. If one interprets this rule in favour of the dampers (and they could use a bit of favour!) then dampers can ignore missiles that have already been hit. This can make them useful as a second line of defence. E.g. you have 20 lasers, and 10 missiles coming in; 2 lasers have a shot at each missile, if they both miss, you're in trouble. Alternatively, you have 10 lasers and 10 NDs; 1 laser shoots at each missile, and you allocate your 10 NDs at the survivors, if 5 survive your lasers, then you put 2NDs on to each of them.
1. It's lightweight. While it may have the same *volume* as a turret, its mass is less, and that means that there's less thrust required from the manoeuvre drive to support it, which implies a smaller manoeuvre drive, and (more importantly from a volume perspective, less fuel to be carried).
2. It needs less crew. For a group of lasers to target separate missiles, they need individual crew (an MFD can only direct them against one target). In contrast, an MFD can direct a group of Nuclear Dampers (just like it can direct multiple missiles separately) and therefore one crew member can (usefully) man multiple Nuclear Dampers. Again, this means they have a smaller footprint on the ship.
3. [This is slightly lawyerly] In Battle Rider, Nuclear Dampers are described as being targeted at missiles that survive laser fire. If one interprets this rule in favour of the dampers (and they could use a bit of favour!) then dampers can ignore missiles that have already been hit. This can make them useful as a second line of defence. E.g. you have 20 lasers, and 10 missiles coming in; 2 lasers have a shot at each missile, if they both miss, you're in trouble. Alternatively, you have 10 lasers and 10 NDs; 1 laser shoots at each missile, and you allocate your 10 NDs at the survivors, if 5 survive your lasers, then you put 2NDs on to each of them.
snrdg082102
SOC-14 1K
Howdy Tupper,
TNE FF&S Mk I Mod 0 p. 57 "Space borne nuclear dampers must have a range of 30,000 km in order to successfully intercept incoming missiles."
The anti-missile/point-defense lasers take out as many missiles as possible the surviving missiles then have to get through nuclear dampers at 30,000 km, which I think is one light-second in Traveller.
Which is what I think you are saying.
TNE FF&S Mk I Mod 0 p. 57 "Space borne nuclear dampers must have a range of 30,000 km in order to successfully intercept incoming missiles."
The anti-missile/point-defense lasers take out as many missiles as possible the surviving missiles then have to get through nuclear dampers at 30,000 km, which I think is one light-second in Traveller.
Which is what I think you are saying.
30kkm is 1/10th of a light-second, which is the size of one space hex.
Nuclear dampers are described as being a screen, like a meson screen, with a range of 30 kkm. This means they attack missiles before lasers do.
The reason that lasers get their defensive fire before the dampers do is because you can't tell which missiles have become incapacitated by the dampers, so you have to shoot at them all; afterward, any remaining are checked to see if they survived the dampers, and those which did get to perform their attacks.
An interesting question to ask would be whether a damper field could be used to shut down enemy reactors. If so, why not build a very long range damper and shut down their whole fleet? My guess would be that this wouldn't work, or you'd shut your own reactor down too. Probably a scale thing - reactors are much bigger than warheads.
Nuclear dampers are described as being a screen, like a meson screen, with a range of 30 kkm. This means they attack missiles before lasers do.
The reason that lasers get their defensive fire before the dampers do is because you can't tell which missiles have become incapacitated by the dampers, so you have to shoot at them all; afterward, any remaining are checked to see if they survived the dampers, and those which did get to perform their attacks.
An interesting question to ask would be whether a damper field could be used to shut down enemy reactors. If so, why not build a very long range damper and shut down their whole fleet? My guess would be that this wouldn't work, or you'd shut your own reactor down too. Probably a scale thing - reactors are much bigger than warheads.
Just for the heck of it I googled light seconds to km and got 299792.458 km per light second.
Traveller in general, and TNE in specific, uses approximations for both the G and LS to make the math easier.
G=9.8 or 10 m/s2, edition dependent
C=300,000,000 m/s
Actual
G=9.80665 m/s2
C=299792458 m/s
snrdg082102
SOC-14 1K
Hi once again TheDS,
Thank you for the correction, I could have sworn I type 0.1. Darn web gremlins got me again.
Page 153 shows that nuclear dampers are mounted in from TL 12 through 14 in barbettes and TL 15+ are turret mounted.
Meson screens generate energy fields through antennas attached to the hull.
I am confused, how can the lasers fire before the dampers when the dampers are already being used to dampen the nuclear device in a nuclear-pumped x-ray laser?
I'll freely admit I'm very light on the combat rules but nuclear dampers are mounted, per page 153, in either barbettes or turrets which are focused on a target locked incoming missile.
The lasers are being fired first to hoping to knock out all of incoming the nuclear-pumped x-ray laser missiles. Any that survive are disabled by the nuclear dampers.
A nuclear damper could probably dampen a ship's reactor, the problem is that the opposing fleet is not, at least I hope they aren't, sitting in one place and not using countermeasures so that the operator or MFD is able to get and maintain a sensor lock.
Not to mention any ordnance the enemy is throwing the defenders way.
Thank you for the correction, I could have sworn I type 0.1. Darn web gremlins got me again.
Page 153 shows that nuclear dampers are mounted in from TL 12 through 14 in barbettes and TL 15+ are turret mounted.
Meson screens generate energy fields through antennas attached to the hull.
I am confused, how can the lasers fire before the dampers when the dampers are already being used to dampen the nuclear device in a nuclear-pumped x-ray laser?
I'll freely admit I'm very light on the combat rules but nuclear dampers are mounted, per page 153, in either barbettes or turrets which are focused on a target locked incoming missile.
The lasers are being fired first to hoping to knock out all of incoming the nuclear-pumped x-ray laser missiles. Any that survive are disabled by the nuclear dampers.
A nuclear damper could probably dampen a ship's reactor, the problem is that the opposing fleet is not, at least I hope they aren't, sitting in one place and not using countermeasures so that the operator or MFD is able to get and maintain a sensor lock.
Not to mention any ordnance the enemy is throwing the defenders way.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Guilded Lilly shows this can be done on the ground at a starport, but as you say weaponising it is probably not doable - at least until higher TLs (long before the damper technology morphs into disintegrator weapons there should be a long range power plant inhibitor IMHO).
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
I would suppose that a warship's reactor would be shielded against that.
Given how the ND and the fusion reactors are described in Canon, I would think that a ND is part of the reactor design. Proton-Proton fusion is the most difficult because the ratio of charge to mass to overcome the Coulomb Force to engage the Strong nuclear force (i.e. fusion). But if you have a device which can alter physics at the quantum level, you can manage to make a fusion reactor much more plausible.
So what you would have in this scenario is two NDs having a fight over how efficient the fusion plant would be. I would say the local one wins most of the time because the feedback loop is much shorter, if the remote one can even detect the changes in the fusion plant. And it has a lot more power it can devote to the effort.
I think you could get a remote ND to shut down your ship's fusion plant, but it would take a much more powerful designed to overcome an active ND. This would be a specifically designed ND with a aggressive sensor array. This is much more than a turret mount ND designed for knocking out nuclear missiles with a single pass.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I think that is a very good explanation.
Which is why there needs to be a sizable TL difference to have a weaponised nuclear damper - perhaps disintegrators should be dual use; vs lower TL opponents they can attempt to shut down the reactors of enemy vessels.
Which is why there needs to be a sizable TL difference to have a weaponised nuclear damper - perhaps disintegrators should be dual use; vs lower TL opponents they can attempt to shut down the reactors of enemy vessels.
Then Dampers have contradictory descriptions within the same book. The Damper design chapter explicitly states they behave like a screen. If the combat rules treat them like a turret, that would seem to be a contradiction. But note that just because something is mounted in a turret doesn't mean it can't act like a screen.
Dampers don't blow up missiles. They inhibit the nuclear reaction of the warhead. You cannot tell in advance whether your damper succeeded in destroying the enemy missile until it deploys its rods and fails to detonate, which happens after the defensive lasers have had an opportunity to shoot it.
Because you can't tell which missiles have been disabled, you have to shoot at them all with your lasers. Any missiles which survive being shot at then determine whether they were disabled by dampers a few minutes before, and if not, they detonate.
Trust me, it makes total sense.
Dampers don't blow up missiles. They inhibit the nuclear reaction of the warhead. You cannot tell in advance whether your damper succeeded in destroying the enemy missile until it deploys its rods and fails to detonate, which happens after the defensive lasers have had an opportunity to shoot it.
Because you can't tell which missiles have been disabled, you have to shoot at them all with your lasers. Any missiles which survive being shot at then determine whether they were disabled by dampers a few minutes before, and if not, they detonate.
Trust me, it makes total sense.
The nuclear damper explanation I'm aware of is from Striker, where they are described as a pair of projectors. The two projectors each create a standing wave pattern, and where the two patterns form an interference point would either enhance or degrade the weak and/or strong nuclear force. By adjusting either the wave pattern or distance between the projectors you can move the interference pattern points.
The ND used as a nuclear missile defense uses a degrade node to cause the fissile material in the warhead to split without release a whole lot of energy. So using one is a question of placing a focus on the missile long enough to degrade the warhead.
At TL 21+ this becomes a disintegration weapon. But at Traveller TLs the time required for a ND focus node to degrade a fission warhead uselessness is on the order of a minute.
Part of the range limitation on the NDs is the separation between the projectors. Striker designs had two grav sleds, each with one projector. You could place them ~100m apart and cover a good chunk of the surface of the planet. The other is the amount of power you can push into each damper projector. Which is the other reason why two grav sleds.
The ND used as a nuclear missile defense uses a degrade node to cause the fissile material in the warhead to split without release a whole lot of energy. So using one is a question of placing a focus on the missile long enough to degrade the warhead.
At TL 21+ this becomes a disintegration weapon. But at Traveller TLs the time required for a ND focus node to degrade a fission warhead uselessness is on the order of a minute.
Part of the range limitation on the NDs is the separation between the projectors. Striker designs had two grav sleds, each with one projector. You could place them ~100m apart and cover a good chunk of the surface of the planet. The other is the amount of power you can push into each damper projector. Which is the other reason why two grav sleds.
snrdg082102
SOC-14 1K
Hello TheDS,
TNE FF&S Mk I Mod 0 page 57
The nuclear damper's field is projected out to a specified range, in this case the minimum is 30,000 km targeting a single missile. If the target lock holds and all other combat die rolls succeed the targeted missile's nuclear device is disabled. The danger that the disabled nuclear missile presents is if it impacts on the hull, converting its velocity into kinetic energy.
Page 57:
Targets within that range may be attacked and targets outside of that range cannot be attacked.
All attacks by nuclear dampers are Difficult test for success, a successful attack renders the warhead inert.
Dampers may have their own sensors which allow them to make their own target locks if the vehicle's main sensors are knocked out.
Per the quoted material my understanding is that lasers fire before the dampers because you do not know which missiles have had their nuclear warheads disabled.
To incapacitate the nuclear warhead the nuclear damper has to maintain a target lock and roll a successful attack, at least that is how I am understanding the material on page 57.
What is not clear is if the nuclear damper's target lock on a single missile or all the missiles within the systems range.
TNE FF&S Mk I Mod 0 page 57
The nuclear damper's field is projected out to a specified range, in this case the minimum is 30,000 km targeting a single missile. If the target lock holds and all other combat die rolls succeed the targeted missile's nuclear device is disabled. The danger that the disabled nuclear missile presents is if it impacts on the hull, converting its velocity into kinetic energy.
Page 57:
Targets within that range may be attacked and targets outside of that range cannot be attacked.
All attacks by nuclear dampers are Difficult test for success, a successful attack renders the warhead inert.
Dampers may have their own sensors which allow them to make their own target locks if the vehicle's main sensors are knocked out.
Per the quoted material my understanding is that lasers fire before the dampers because you do not know which missiles have had their nuclear warheads disabled.
To incapacitate the nuclear warhead the nuclear damper has to maintain a target lock and roll a successful attack, at least that is how I am understanding the material on page 57.
What is not clear is if the nuclear damper's target lock on a single missile or all the missiles within the systems range.
I suppose it depends on if they are treated like a screen or a gun. If they're treated like a gun, then you need to know how many shots the damper can take in a turn. I can't recall seeing anything which suggested they could fire at more than one target at a time, other than where it said they act like screens.
Your own quote says "Nuclear damper SCREENS". The next paragraph under that (in the book) calls them screens twice more. (And then says they need a beam pointer 2 paragraphs later and may use an MFD, which would heavily imply they are beams and not screens.)
Like I said, contradictory description. But I think the intent was that they are beams rather than screens, so I'll withdraw my earlier conclusion.
Your own quote says "Nuclear damper SCREENS". The next paragraph under that (in the book) calls them screens twice more. (And then says they need a beam pointer 2 paragraphs later and may use an MFD, which would heavily imply they are beams and not screens.)
Like I said, contradictory description. But I think the intent was that they are beams rather than screens, so I'll withdraw my earlier conclusion.
