Bertil:
>> From: [email removed]
>> Subject: fusion rockets...
>>
>> After all, the 500T of TNT equivalent in a det-laser is pretty
>> trivial next to the 30,000T of TNT equivalent of even a small, wimpy
>> drive. Per second. Call it 3MT of damage to wherever it took off
>> from. Like the TED's palace. Or pretty much anywhere else that
>> offended you.
> Now this is a problem.
Loud laughter is heard in the distance! Really loud!
It's really fascinating reading this, after listening to all of you
bitch and moan about how MT used reactionless drives, and how fusion
drives would be MUCH better, and more realistic...
More loud laughter is heard!
> Ok, I'd probably (in my campaing) say that it is a BAD IDEA to run
> the main drive of a ship inside any atmosphere denser than code 1. And
> that the drive has much too short range to be used in space combat
> unless you manage to bluff your way in to 1km or less from the enemy.
Why should it be bad??? Your reasoning is specious, as can be seen by
looking at pictures of any Saturn launch. The blast punches DOWN!
Hard! Way too hard for anything trivial like atmosphere to slow it
down. It only takes about 0.0025 seconds for the blast to reach from
50,000 meters to ground level. Even at mind-boggling pressures, it
isn't going to spread much till it hits ground ("not much" means that it
should still be focused on an area no more than 10Km across...).
> (So how do they reach orbit? Easy: CD plus *small* maneuver jets)
Probably use Scramjets, just like we used to do back in original Trav
when we first started playing many years ago...
> Space stations and vaccum worlds will however be vulnerable, but they
> have always been vulnerable.
ALL worlds are vulnerable! Every last one of them!
> (Another thing that strikes me is that the reflected energy might be
> bad for the ship. In space, everything goes away from the ship, so
> only the actual engine nozzle or whatever needs to be able to
> withstand it. But if you run it in air the air will form a nuke-type
> fireball *just aft of the drives* that will return entirely too much
> of the thermal radiation to your ship. Likewise for hosing a space
> station at 200m)
DREAM ON, Bertil! Look at a REAL rocket launch! MUCH lower exhaust
velocity, MUCH lower pressures, and they DO _NOT_ form fireballs - they
form long tongues af flame. Which this will do as well. Only this will
make them longer, hotter, FAR more lethal!
Hans:
> Steve Higginbotham:
> >Oh, yeah!
> >I forgot to comment on the conclusion someone drew that the fusion
> >drive probably be used as weapons (like a plasma gun, only bigger).
> >My first cut shows a Free Trader having a drive with an energy
> >output of about 30KT/SEC. This is hardly a trivial matter. ANd
> >really renders everyone's objections to PCs with nukes pretty
> >trivial. After all, the 500T of TNT equivalent in a det-laser is
> >pretty trivial next to the 30,000T of TNT equivalent of even a small,
> >wimpy drive. Per second. Call it 3MT of damage to wherever it took
> >off from. Like the TED's palace. Or pretty much anywhere else that
> >offended you.
> >So stop wasting time babbling about TRIVIA like those det-laser
> >missiles. If you really want to disarm your PCs, start by preventing
> >them from getting their hands on a ship of any kind....
> >Think about it....
> I've thunk. An it seems to me that what we really need is a couple of
> carefully tailored science-fictiony gimmicks to make things work out
> properly. I'm thinking about force fields and similar not-very-
> scientific whatnots. Item: I don't want just any starship owner to be
> able to torch planets at will, yet we have these super blowtorches.
> Answer: Planetary force screens. Item: I don't want ship combat to be
> simply a missile counter-measure, counter-counter-measure
> oneupmanship, but with nuclear missiles being capable of vapourising
> any concievable metal what can we do? How about force screens that
> deflect 99% (or 99.9 or whatever is needed) of even a contact
> explosion? Make the generators really expensive and we solve the
> problem of making warships much more expensive than merchant ships
> too.
MORE loud laughter!
Hans, sounds like you REALLY want to play the Star Wars RPG, not
Traveller. And aren't you one of the guys who used to say rude things
about grav, and wish for realistic fusion drives?
Quite frankly, I am pretty disgusted by the fact that everyone seems
willing to change the "laws of the universe" rather than face up to the
situation presented, and learn to live with it. If you use the starship
rules ("laws of nature") from TNE, you have to learn to deal with the
fact that ANY ship can toast ANY city (well, any city at TL12-, and most
any at TL14-).
So what does that mean? Well, landing ships should be RIGHT OUT!
Allowing a fusion gun that size near ANY city is INSANE! So ships
should be docking at space stations FAR from a planet (like
geostationary orbit, for instance. That gives the planetary defenses
time to scrag anyone who deviates from traffic corridors toward the
planet). You should LAND in shuttles that have ONLY scramjet/chemical
rocket drives (getting up and down will be pretty damn tricky. Sort of
like 2300AD).
Of course, out in the Wilds, there is NO WAY IN HELL that you can
keep PCs (OR NPCS!!!!!) from landing anywhere they like, and toasting
anyone they dislike! So live with it. Or stop complaining, and go back
to Megatraveller starship rules (yeah, the ones most of you have spent
YEARS complaining about)! And remember this the next time you decide to
cry out for "more realistic starship rules".
Loud laughter fading into the distance....
---Steve Higginbotham