[email removed] writes:
>
> Since mesons are supposed to pass through matter without effect, why should
> ships be designed with external meson mounts? ...
> Spinal mounts would not need anything external to the ship
> as they are not required to move (did anybody every notice the art-work
> in some of the traveller books that show large starships with things
> sticking out of them that are supposed to be meson guns???).
Spinal mounts are the single biggest thing on a ship. They are so big that
they stick out at one end, probably both ends. I have the old game
"Azhanti High Lightning", complete with deck plans for the cruiser; the
meson gun is shown on every deck, so it extends the entire length of the
ship.
What I want to know is, what prevents me from designing a battleship with
two meson guns mounted along the keel instead of just one? That way, there
is a reason to build huge immense Star Destroyers!
> Along the same line is the question of meson batteries bearing: since they
> can shoot through the ship itself, they should ALL be able to bear on an
> enemy ship.
Not necessarily. The mountings may not be able to cover an entire sphere.
For that matter, I'd expect that a planet would need at least two buried
meson guns for total coverage.
> One objection to this concept is that firing through your own hull is
> very dangerous and is not considered a safe practice.
I don't think the mesons interact with anything on the way, unless someone
set the range wrongly!
There is also the matter of sensors. Not the general sensors, which are
dealt with separately, but fire control sensors providing the exact targetting
data for the weapons. A "weapon" result on the damage table may actually mean
that a fire control sensor has been hit.
- --
"Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott
Adrian Hurt | JANET: [email removed]
UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian | ARPA: [email removed]