On the subject of high velocity projectiles Scott Kellog writes:
> Well, I got to thinking about this matter again, and wondered just what
> energy would be had after just 1 day's worth of acceleration @ 2G's.
> Well, with some really rough back of the envelope calculations. (no I didn't
> really check my math very well) One comes to the conclusion that one
> must increase the mass of the projectile dramatically to keep the energy
> the same. So, after 1 day's acceleration instead of 10 grams, you have
> to throw 3.25 kilograms out the airlock to still hit the target with 1
> kiloton. So, you want that city wiped out? Just throw 3.25 metric tons
> out at it for a one megaton yield.
>
> Now while I am willing to conceed that accelerating on a constant vector
> for 18 days might get you a speeding ticket, accelerating for ONE day will
> have to fall under the category of normal operations for a scout ship.
>
> BOOM!
And Adrian Hurt writes:
>
> One article later, [email removed] also writes:
> >
> > Planetary Bombardment:
> >
> > Scott Kellogg and Rob Dean pursued the rocks as bombs theory to
> > great lengths whereas it was proven that a small lead bullett could
> > be used to "crack" an entire world ( given enough initial velocity).
> > It is virtually indetectible and a Type S could do it.
>
> Here we go again. Summary of arguments about this idea:
> .Anyone caught doing it would be lynched by everyone. The Imperial and
> Zhodani navies would probably co-operate for the first time in their lives
> to catch the culprit.
Lucan rewarded an admiral who reduced a planet by conventional weaponry.
And it wouldn't help against crazies or fanatics (there's a difference?)
> .The type S would have to accelerate to a tremendous velocity to do this.
> Physics experts here doubted that the ship could get enough kinetic energy
> from the ship's drives.
>
> .The ship which tried this would itself be vapourised by the first dust
> particle it hit. The only pilot you would get for such a mission would
> be a mad Vargr intent on getting the title "fastest sentient being alive",
> shortly before he got the title "fastest cloud of gas", and with a big
> question being raised about the inclusion of the word "sentient" in the
> former title.
Perhaps it would, but that dosen't help against Scott's suggestion above.
No, the best reason why it dosen't work may be that the Referee don't want
any crazy shipowner in his game to be able to destroy a planet at a whim,
and so therefor he can't (or won't think about it). There's already other
areas where we have to be unrealistic in order to make the game fun. Think
about it. Even today weapons are made where the only real defense is to
avoid getting shot at. What with laser rangefinders and target painting and
special ammunition I'm pretty sure that no real-life Traveller-style bunch
of adventurers would last longer than one or two fights. But we want our
players to last longer than one or two adventures, so we have rule that
makes getting shot at survivable (with luck ;-)
Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
[email removed]