> Bertil:
> > Further assumptions: The nuke/laser assembly represents the largest
> >part of the price of normal missiles. After that comes the electronics
> >and the cheapest part is the actual engine.
>
> Before you get too attached to this idea, remember that these missile
> all are capable of WELL OVER 100,000m/s delta-V. These are NOT simple,
> solid-fuel missiles. These are fusion-rocket missiles, and so the
> drives are likely to be more expensive than you might guesstimate.
Didn't someone do a very cheap KEAP missile according to the megatraveller
rules? It might have changed now of course. I'll put in a higher overhead for
the engine in the missiles, but then there has been an opening for solid
fuel missiles with a low amount of Gturns for close in work.
> Note also that you are assuming that the det lasers are sprayed wildly
> when detonated. It is probably safe to assume that each lasing element
> has the necessary controls to POINT itself at a target before detonation
> occurs.
Actually I imagined something more shotgun-like. All elements are fixed
mounted with minuscle differences in direction, and the entire missile is
pointed towards the target.
> >Cannister missile.
> > This missile releases 15,000 10g 10mm tungsten spheres into a cloud
> >to ensure that at least one of them hits the target. The cloud is
> >released at a range of 30,000km and the velocity with which it expands
> >is automatically selected based on the closing velocity between the
> >missile and the target to achieve the maximum probability of a hit.
>
> This is a joke, right? At 30,000Km, the target ship would have to
> expend around _1G-second_ laterally to make sure that the cloud of
> pebbles makes a clean miss.
Ok ok I've already corrected that.
> ---Steve Higginbotham
- -bertil-
- --
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
exercise for your kill-file."