mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Sicence fiction, not science fantasy for a reason.
What works? How are ships and vehicles armed?
- Thread starter Badenov
- Start date
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
Pretty much the same as what Spinflow posted. He took my meaning a little more closely, actual IND, which isn’t the case, but does apply to lower case ind that is not NI.
I’d probably apply a 30% cost increase to NI missiles and -30% decrease from IND worlds.
Re the non-IND starport A building starships, I’d say they can assemble out of standardized letter drives but not build custom.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Which includes missile racks and missiles...
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
Sprint missiles did powered 200g for a few seconds so yes 1G1- but they were more bay missile sized.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
Shrug, interpretation. If you accept the supplement as RAW, no, ignore it yes. Effectively preference.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
And the rest... the Sprint is 3,500kg, Seventy times larger.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I call it a glaring inconsistency.
1G1 is 1,200 g-seconds. The sprint missile did 100g for 5s (according to wikipedia), which isn't even half that, and was a two-stage missile weighing 3.5 tonnes. A two-stage 50kg missile that also includes a guidance package and warhead that can do 1G1 at TL6 is a very big ask. Chemicals won't cut it. The nuclear options at TL6 are too heavy and have poor thrust/weight ratios. Nuclear pulse is right out on something that small (and would be unhealthy for the launching craft).
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
Oh I have no problem assigning some grav/maneuver drive for missiles. I ignore the concept of chemical reaction alone. Perhaps grav neutralization and chemical propulsion so you get game effect limited powered flight.
I assume more mass reduction and a miniaturized fusion plant that burns through fuel as both reaction and coolant. Whatever works at your table is my guiding motto.
Yes, you can. It's not going to leave room for a warhead... but that's trivial in space combat. It's going to be a liquid fuel expendable, and generate the whole 1000 g•s in about 10 s of them. But it's also liquid fueled.
That actually varies by which CT edition, and TNE is also different.
CT-77 is 600 s
CT-81 is 1000s turns
If using HG, the turn is 1200s
SS3 is not for HG; it's actually released for CT-81.. but it was use by a mixture of 77 and 81 Bk2. There's no point to SS3 if using HG.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
The motor is a minimim mass, the guidance system has a minumum mass, the fuel tanks are a minimum mass, now add the mass of fuel needed for a 1000s burn and you can't do it in a 50kg package. Run the numbers, you need around 140kg of fuel for 1g for 1000s for a dry mass of 10kg (guidance, motor, fuel tank structure)
You need:
- much higher exhaust velocity than a chemical rocket can produce
- a more energy dense power generation method and alternative reaction mass
- lower the dry mass of the guidance system-motor-energy storage-reaction mass
- invoke space magic - a miniature null grav module to reduce inertial mass, a magic reaction mass less engine, space dragon dust as fuel.
Last edited:
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Sensors would have a minimum size.
Warhead depends on desired effect.
Rocket and fuel tank should be scalable to acceleration and range.
Warhead depends on desired effect.
Rocket and fuel tank should be scalable to acceleration and range.
At TL6... The problem isn't the performance. It's the performance at low TLs.
FF&S has a serious drop-off in efficiency for small solid fuel rockets, so you won't be using those (and at TL6 they'll only get 800 g-seconds for a 500+ kg missile that's all rocket anyway). A TL6 liquid fuel rocket can manage ~890 g-s. Neither will get you 20 g-minutes (1200 g-s, which was what was first mentioned) with a payload in 50kg.
However Traveller is not, and has never been, a hard "as in engineers agree it's possible" SF game so I don't think it's terribly important. If it is to someone's TU, then they can either change the rules, or use a rules set that matches what they want better. In this case that means FF&S1/2, GURPS Vehicles, or homebrew, because CTs various rules for space missiles don't reflect physics as we understand it, nor do MT, and nor do any other sets based on those that I'm aware of - Mongoose's certainly don't (I think it was MgT 1e that had space missiles that could turn around and get a second attack roll...).
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Nobody "shoots" at the immediate beginning of the combat round and then expects a "hit" by the absolute end of the combat round (a full 20 minute burn time!).
Much more reasonable would be an "assumption" of a 10 minute burn duration per turn (or even 5 minutes for high velocity missile fires). The shorter the burn time (accelerating) the "better" the performance tradeoffs. Can even go 1 minute if you want to.
For example, a missile could do a 1 minute burn at high G (say, 10G for 60 seconds) to get it "pointed" in the right direction of its intended target ("thataway") ... and then use the remaining burn for any terminal guidance course corrections to bring the warhead into range. So, quick acceleration and then a coast phase ... before entering the terminal "no escape" envelope of the missile's arrival on target.
It all depends on how you "shape" the delta-v profile of your missiles.
That doesn't help. In fact, for non-solid fuel rockets it's worse because you need just as much fuel and a bigger rocket to get that higher acceleration. Assuming that 1G1 (or whatever) means a constant acceleration over the entire time period is the kindest assumption for the missile for any given delta-vee.
Are we going to let a design system get in the way of a good time?
Honestly I have put some thought into the missile topics this week. The 1st question that comes in to my mind is what missile model do y'all want to use operationally.
In that Air-to-Air missiles tend to be just slightly faster than the aircraft who launch them, consider a F-16 at Mach 2.2 vs a Sidewinder at Mach 2.5. Generally with a fairly limited range, i.e. hitting the target
While Surface to Surface trend towards 40kn from the launchers ship speed with a Missile speed of 500kn, case here is a surface ship and a Harpoon cruise missile. Note in this case the missile is a two stage weapon with the primary stage boosting the missile to operational speed.
Weirdly the Air-to-Air model looks a lot like Book2, while the Surface-to-Surface Book5.
A third case is Torpedos especially modern ones, which some can make multiple attacks, but speed wise the look like the Air-to-Air in the launcher vs target ratio.
Please note all of the above generally have fight times under a turn in Traveller terms.
Thickness is dependent upon pressure, This makes a SRB mass scale with surface area, not volume, as you don't need to increass the shell thickness.
ΣΔV is based upon mass fraction and thrust fraction, not scaled, and determines maximum change in vector...
Note that CT kinetic damage is based upon the difference in vectors plus the 1d of the standard warhead... no warhead is needed. A 1g1 missile is essentially a mine.great for hitting pursuit craft and for hitting stations, but lousy for most other uses.
Similar threads
