Re: Fusiondrive Control Incorporated

> > Hole one does IMHO not need to be plugged. It has been noted in several
> > canonic sources that they *are* intensely vulnerable, so this won't change
> > anything.
>
> Solid objects on vacuum worlds are still solid objects; it's just as bad
> for your ship to turn the drive on a space station or other large, solid
> object.  So vacuum worlds aren't *really* that vulnerable.

  I imagine that the mechanism that harm the ship works like this: The
fusion rocket eject <whatever> (soft xrays perhaps:). If it is inside an
atmosphere, it will form a classical fireball just aft of the ship. If it
is close to an object in vacuum, it will hit the object and do damage through
thermal and ionizing radiation and perhaps particles of different kinds too.
Since it is so powerful it will make a 'fireball' of the material if it is
close enough and that will emit thermal radiation that harms the ship.
Reflexion of particles and thermal radiation is also possible.

  Since the intensity of the exhaust drops with the square (or is it cube?
it's 11PM here in Sweden:) of the distance, the retransmittance/reflexion
isn't perfect, and the intensity of radiation going back the other way also
drops with the square (cube?) there should be a range at which the ship would
do some damage without any major ill effects to itself.

> > Presumably the missile engines are related to the maneuver jets of the
> > ships, and since the 'BAD IDEA' idea needs that the maneuver jets are usable
> > in the atmosphere without any major bad effects, missile engines behave
> > similarily.
>
> Maybe not.

  I can accept a continous plasma gun with range 10 and pen 10 resulting from
the maneuver jets. Imagine the difficulty in maneuvering the whole bloody
ship to aim the thing! :)

> This is just speculation right now, so let me know what you
> folks think:
>
> Maneuvering jets are only used in vacuum, where the jet dissipates and
> there are no thermal effects to harm the ship.  The jets are small
> enough that they can be used down to the last few tens of meters in a
> docking operation (at which point the delicate final maneuvers are done
> with gas jets (use LH2 or water in a resistojet) and gyros for
> rotational control.
>
> When entering (or leaving) an atmosphere, the ContraGrav lifters are
> used to vary the ship's attraction to (or repulsion from) the planet.

  I know I used this for a suggested evasive tactics, but there *is* large
grey areas around the CG, especially now in TNE when it has been made clear
that you can't use it for propulsion.
  The CG in general is a minfield of rationalizations that can backfire in
nasty ways: Imagine a powerplant that uses a weight suspended with CG
and has a generator attached to the wire. If the energy used up by the CG
is less that what you get out of the generator, you have yourself a free
energy device at least as good as the 'thruster plate power plant' that
was possible in MegaT:)

  IMHO we should follow the examples given (that CG needs additional
thrust of some kind to get anywhere).

> Another option: Small maneuvering jets (as above) used only in a vacuum,
> along with gas jets and gyros for fine and close quarters maneuvering.
> WHen in an atmosphere, special ramscoops are opened (part of the cost
> for an atmospherically-stremlined design) which admit ram air into the
> engine compartment.

  I remember the HOTOL and wonder if this setup could be combined with the
fuel scoops:)
  (That would give a reason for keeping the fuel scoops even though GG
skimming is very rare in TNE)

> >   Hmm, I think I've changed opinion again: To avoid making the class 2+
> > missiles totally worthless, there should *not* be an 'Extra Close -1 diff'
> > mod.
>
> Sounds reasonable.  They don't sound too difficult to hit in the first
> place; and after all, they are a very small target, close in, and moving
> quite fast.

  I'm not certain how an MFD and the sensor lock requirement affect the
usability of missiles. The MFD could presumably make it much easier to fire
against one missile, but the sensor lock could make it more difficult to
fire against the second missile in the same turn.
  Have you found any specific mention of if it is allowed to change fire
to new targets within a turn?

> [email removed]

- -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."