Re: Fusion Rockets and Missiles

> >   In old Mayday you got a 1 light second/100 minutes vector when you passed
> > within 1 light second from a planet. Differences enough to make a difference
> > for combat purposes are (if Mayday is correct) available futher out.
>
> A missile built for space ought to take gravitational wells into account
> in it's programming.

  What I ment was that the ship, by varying the CG (there already is a
detectable gravitation fiddling inside it: the inertial compensators and
artificial gravitation) against the gravitation of a large body could vary
its vector in an undetectable way.

> Well, they were bloody cheap in Trav.  1000 Cr for a densiometer, and
> 1000 Cr for a neutrino sensor.  (JTAS 21 Missile Suppliment)

  Well, missiles were cheaper then:)

> Actually, not many TL3 Naval guns could elevate that well...  But my
> guess is that the plasma plume of the engines is going to be equivalent
> to a HEAVY fusion gun with a range of several kilometers.

  Remember that the new fusion and plasma rifles have a range of up to 70m,
and they use a laser to prep the way of the plasma bolt. Without the laser
'the plasma bolt dissipates far too quickly'.

> Scott 2G Kellogg

- -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."