TL8 Drop Troops
Foxtaur
I'm working up a nifty little TL8 setting, where the PCs will be aboard
the HMSS Sir Isaac Brock. This ship usually just quietly orbits the Earth;
but whenever the higher-ups decide to intervene in a military hotspot, the
Brock is quite the useful tool. It has around sixty nukes it can drop if
the mission is just to utterly destroy a given target (tactical nuclear
warheads have lost some of their social stigma after being used so
liberally by both sides in the decade-long European/Islamic war); but when
the object is to do a /controlled/ amount of damage, the Brock sends in
its dropships.
The Brock carries one company of drop troopers - about 160 men - split
into four platoons. Four dropships - the "Detroit", "Queenston Heights",
"Stony Creek", and "Beaver Dam" take the soldiers from whatever orbit the
Brock happens to be in to the target zone. Depending on the specific
mission, either the dropships will land, or the troopers will either
parachute out (letting the dropships leave the area in a hurry). If one
dropship is knocked out, the remaining three can carry the entire company.
Now, my questions:
You're probably familiar with Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" (which the
movie bears little resemblance to), and you might have read the "Alien
Legion" series of comic books. Within 'standard' TL8 limits, and taking
into account that this company is yet-another assembly of the 'best of the
best' (or, like Nomad, 'worst of the worst' <grin>), these are the closest
examples I can think of of the type of military group I'm trying to write
up. I have some ideas which I'd like your opinions on, and I'd also like
to see what ideas you can come up with. :)
Given how common CBRN weapons (chemical, biological, radiological,
nuclear) are, and that the occasional mission will be on the moon or at an
orbital colony, armoured vacuum suits are an absolute minimum. And given
how heavy those are in addition to a standard combat load, exoskeletons
also sound like a good idea. When I add up all the available options for
such a suit (plus an emergency medkit) the total comes to 532.2 lbs and
$294,755 per suit - and that's without any weaponry or extras. Given that
the Brock herself cost about $2.5 billion, I suppose that's not completely
unreasonable... is it?
(Also, given CBRN warfare, the Brock carries a P4-secure Full Genetics
Lab to deal with any nasties the troopers might discover.)
For TL8-level weapons, the only sourcebooks I have are Basic, Space, and
Cyberpunk. I've also declared that batteries have 1/10th the energy of
standard powercells, which means that man-portable lasers aren't
especially useful.
My latest ideas for arming these fellows is to split them into 4-man
"Fire Teams", carrying four vibro-blades, three Assault Chainguns, an EM
Mortar or automatic EM Grenade Launcher, various grenades, and ammunition.
I also want at least a one-shot anti-vehicle weapon, but the Mortar is the
closest I can find. Given how much money has already been sunk into the
Brock, the guns might as well be "very fine" and the vibroblades "super
fine".
Visible cybernetics have about the same social stigma as current
prosthetics ("You mean you cut off your arm?"), but are still better than
not having a given limb at all. The military would probably be willing to
pay for certain biomods, though, should the soldier volunteer. (Bio-Tech,
page 63; Jointwork, Muscle Graft, Eye Upgrade, and Bone Stimulation seem
appropriate.)
One thing I haven't quite worked out is what sort of parachuting gear the
troopers might use. Heinlein's troops had the advantage of a TL10-level
Personal Reentry Kit; the only other thing my books list is the Backpack
Parawing from Cyberpunk.
Should I try to come up with one or two drop-attack-aircraft, for when
a nuke's too big but fragmentation-mortar-shells are too small? What sort
of craft would you design?
Here's what I've come up with so far for the Brock herself and her
dropships. How do they look to you? What changes do you suggest?
-----8<-----
Space Submarine: "HMSS Sir Isaac Brock"
Spaces Mass Cost Notes
Hull, 2M cf, SL (3160) 200 12 Area: 100 ksf.
Total Compartment. - 40 .4
Turrets, large, 2 <200> 40 2.4 Area: 20 ksf.
cDR: 1 - 900 36 "Advanced" armor.
Radical Stealth - 120 180
Radical Cloaking - 240 360
Large Bridge 4 9 3.2
Enhanced Sensors 1 12 23 Scan: 34/33. Power: 1.
Astronomical - .1 .5
Planetary - .12 .25
Life Support, total 66 165 3.3 Capacity: 330. Power: 1.5.
Cabins 330 330 .99
Crew, 150 - 15 -
Missile bays, 2 2 2 .006
16 Hvy Nukes - 22.4 2.112
40 Lt Nukes - 12 3.44
Entries, lrg, 3 3 9 .033
Halls, 3 30 .6 .09
Surgeries, 3 1.5 .42 .15
Ursaline - - .858 330-man, 2-year supply.
Fission Core 1 4 .61
Fission Power 200 800 160 400 MW.
Fissionables - - 320 2 year supply.
Solar Panels 2 24 2.88 Area 96 ksf. 3.8 MW at 1 AU.
Batteries 10 250 50 450,000 MWs.
Light Sails 2 100 100 Thrust: 20. 30 sq. mi.
Nuclear Pulse Drive 300 1200 240
Fuel Tank 1000 25 170
N Pellets - 12000 300
Genetics Lab, P4 20 100 10 G:Bio-Tech, page 21.
Dropship bays, 3 315 1.5 0.009
Dropships, 3 - 3561.69 300.459 Includes mass of marines.
Cargo Space 872.5 0 0
Cargo - 0 0
Heavy Laser <100> 500 90 Power: 10,000.
Heavy P-Beam <100> 500 90 Power: 29,000.
SM: +11
cSM: +1
ASig: -7
When using light sails: -1
PSig: -7
cHP: Hull: 1500
Turrets: 300 each
Total Mass: 21,183.83 tons.
Total Cost: $2,459,817,000.00
sAccel: 1.416 Gs
Burn Endurance: 1h 8m 34.2s.
Delta Vee: 57,100.2 m/s
Top Air Speed: 4,330.1 mph.
-----
Dropships: "Detroit", "Queenston Heights", "Stony Creek", "Beaver Dam"
Spaces Mass Cost Notes
Hull, 50k cf, SL (80) 200 12 Area: 10 ksf.
cDR: 1 - 75 3 "Advanced" armor.
Radical Stealth - 10 15
Radical Cloaking - 20 30
Cockpit 0.5 2.5 1.1
Basic Sensors 1 12 4.6 Scan: 32/31. Power: 0.5.
Passenger Seats 4 5.6 0.036 60 men. Power: 0.03.
Entry Module, small 0.5 2 0.007
Crew, 60+pilot - 6.1 -
Surgeries, 2 1 0.28 0.1
Fission Core 1 4 0.61
Fission Power 1 4 0.8 2 MW.
Fissionables - - 0.16 2-year supply.
Nuclear Pulse Drive 1 4 0.8 Thrust: 100.
Fuel Tank 70 1.75 11.9
N pellets - 840 21
SM: +8
cSM: -2
ASig: -10
PSig: -10
cHP: 150
Total Mass: 1,187.23 tons.
Total Cost: $100,153,000.
sAccel: 0.084 Gs.
Burn Endurance: 24 hours.
Delta Vee: 71,319.0 m/s.
Top Air Speed: 866.0 mph.
Time to reach Earth Orbit: 4 hours, 49 minutes, 42.6 seconds.
Time to escape Earth Orbit: 6 hours, 49 minutes, 42.6 seconds.
----->8-----
(And if you're wondering: The Brock was originally American, but during
some political shenanigans involving arms limits, was transferred to
Canada, who then lent it to NATO. Canada is a country caught in the middle
between the US/Islamic and Europe/China power blocs; Canadians try to be
as un-American as they can be, given how close they are. (For example,
after Fidel died (at as ripe an old age as TL8 medicine can buy), in order
to avoid becoming Yet Another American Territory, Cuba declared itself
part of Canada... <grin>)
After establishing the setting with the players, I intend for the main
plot to involve the Brock swinging around to Mars after the Phobos and
Deimos colonies are lasered into oblivion by undeclared attackers... I'll
probably have the ship swing around Venus, both because it can be a
shorter route, and for any Venusian intrigue I can come up with - perhaps
having to acquire fuel for the Nuke-Pulse drives from uncooperative folk,
within a time limit that can't be changed as the Brock swings around on
its Hohmann orbit...
Do you have any other plotworthy ideas?
Any other comments at all? :)
Thank you for your time,
--
Foxtaur
The Rrangoon species is available at http://www.phantomcross.org/
John Ringo
they may not be in the "tech inventory" but they're a natural for the
situation you describe.
John
--
"Why does treason never prosper? Why if it prospers, none dare call it
treason!"
"Foxtaur" <spam.fox...@spam.warren.kill.com> wrote in message
news:eRpV5.160806$UO.6...@news22.bellglobal.com...
: First, some background:
:
: I'm working up a nifty little TL8 setting, where the PCs will be aboard
: the HMSS Sir Isaac Brock.
snip
Foxtaur
> You need to consider what sort of "artillery" they can call on. Use Thors,
> they may not be in the "tech inventory" but they're a natural for the
> situation you describe.
What sort of 'Thor' are you referring to? After some quick searches on
Deja and Google, all I can find is a "Self-Propelled Heavy Artillery" for
Battletech / Mechwarrior, and the McDonnell Thor IRBM from circa-1960.
cra...@hotmail.com
Foxtaur <spam.fox...@spam.warren.kill.com> wrote:
> John Ringo <john...@cuthis.mindspring.exthisout.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > You need to consider what sort of "artillery" they can call on. Use
Thors,
> > they may not be in the "tech inventory" but they're a natural for
the
> > situation you describe.
>
> What sort of 'Thor' are you referring to? After some quick
> searches on Deja and Google, all I can find is a "Self-Propelled
> Heavy Artillery" for Battletech / Mechwarrior, and the
> McDonnell Thor IRBM from circa-1960.
Thor? You haven't heard of Thor?
My boy, you simply MUST read "Footfall" by Larry Niven and
Jerry Pournelle. Talk about using near-future technology to stomp
the heck out of a planet...
Anyway, Thors are (probably metallic) projectiles dropped from
orbit ranging in size (depending on who you talk to) from
crowbars to telephone poles.
If you figure your typical, quite aerodynamic Thor will retain
a few miles per second from its orbital velocity of ~5mps
after re-entry, you've got a projectile moving 2-3 times as
fast as a current tank cannon's APFSDS shell. Guidance is
quite likely used.
Imagine a steel telephone pole dropped from orbit and landing
on top of a tank. Or aircraft carrier. Or just nearby.
Now, to try orbital drops:
http://www.rocketry.com/mwade/craftfam/rescue.htm
Those are a bunch of escape systems for spacecraft. Look
for the GE Liferaft, the Paracone, Moose [1], 1-crew
re-entry capsule...btw, those are all in bottom-to-top
order on the previous link.
[1] http://www.rocketry.com/mwade/craft/moose.htm
Note some of those designs like the Paracone got down
to 80kg.
Using GURPS rules, I suppose you could model a one-man
re-entry capsule using re-entry rules in GURPS Vehicles,
pg160-ish. That gives you a DR value for the fireproof
ablative (or metal) armor you'd need to survive the damage
from re-entry. A short-burning rocket, like a 30-second
chemical rocket with .1-1G of thrust would be plenty to
drop the capsule below orbital velocity. Make it a disk
8ft-10ft in diameter, slap on a crew station (G-seat,
of course), bolt on a parachute that deploys when the
object hits terminal velocity (pretty low unless its a
lifting body design), and you should be good to go.
--
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
"I told [Clinton] I'd be happy to take the first year and then he
could have the second year while they're working this out. But
this sucks..." --Bob Dole
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
overw...@my-deja.com
Foxtaur <spam.fox...@spam.warren.kill.com> wrote:
> John Ringo <john...@cuthis.mindspring.exthisout.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > You need to consider what sort of "artillery" they can call on. Use
Thors,
> > they may not be in the "tech inventory" but they're a natural for
the
> > situation you describe.
>
> What sort of 'Thor' are you referring to? After some quick searches
on
> Deja and Google, all I can find is a "Self-Propelled Heavy Artillery"
for
> Battletech / Mechwarrior, and the McDonnell Thor IRBM from circa-1960.
>
> --
> Foxtaur
> The Rrangoon species is available at http://www.phantomcross.org/
>
Imagine a guided crowbar dropped from orbit.... essentially a chunk of
iron and a guidance package that will survive re-entry and do damage
based on the kinetic energy of the impact.
SF book reference in Niven and Pournelle's "Footfall".
- Kurt
--
"I don't pay attention to what men say, I just watch what they do."
- Andrew Carnegie
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
- Groucho Marx
Florian Berner
> on top of a tank. Or aircraft carrier. Or just nearby.
>
spent uranium (the same thing some tanks use as ammo) or something like
it instead of steel. Just a detail.
cu
Flo
Foxtaur
> Foxtaur <spam.fox...@spam.warren.kill.com> wrote:
>> John Ringo <john...@cuthis.mindspring.exthisout.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> You need to consider what sort of "artillery" they can call on. Use
>>> Thors, they may not be in the "tech inventory" but they're a natural
>>> for the situation you describe.
>> What sort of 'Thor' are you referring to?
> My boy, you simply MUST read "Footfall" by Larry Niven and
> Jerry Pournelle. Talk about using near-future technology to stomp
> the heck out of a planet...
Must... not... spout... off... <ahem>
I actually happen to have a copy of 'Footfall' on my desk right now,
though I read it quite a while ago and have forgotten quite a few details
(which I've been telling myself is a Good Thing :) ). I've also been
telling myself that I'm using it as an example of how /not/ to wage an
interplanetary-scale war - but that might just be because of the
seemingly-forced stupidity of the fithp...
> Anyway, Thors are (probably metallic) projectiles dropped from
> orbit ranging in size (depending on who you talk to) from
> crowbars to telephone poles.
>
> If you figure your typical, quite aerodynamic Thor will retain
> a few miles per second from its orbital velocity of ~5mps
> after re-entry, you've got a projectile moving 2-3 times as
> fast as a current tank cannon's APFSDS shell. Guidance is
> quite likely used.
>
> Imagine a steel telephone pole dropped from orbit and landing
> on top of a tank. Or aircraft carrier. Or just nearby.
As the saying goes, "Cool". :)
Now, all I have to do is come up with some official-sounding GURPS
numbers for such a beastie... I'll probably end up basing the launcher on
the railgun listed in G:Space, but have to come up with new damage
numbers.
Unless, of course, some kind soul here happens to have already worked out
some details...? :)
> Now, to try orbital drops:
> Using GURPS rules, I suppose you could model a one-man
> re-entry capsule using re-entry rules in GURPS Vehicles,
> pg160-ish. That gives you a DR value for the fireproof
> ablative (or metal) armor you'd need to survive the damage
> from re-entry. A short-burning rocket, like a 30-second
> chemical rocket with .1-1G of thrust would be plenty to
> drop the capsule below orbital velocity. Make it a disk
> 8ft-10ft in diameter, slap on a crew station (G-seat,
> of course), bolt on a parachute that deploys when the
> object hits terminal velocity (pretty low unless its a
> lifting body design), and you should be good to go.
Hm; I hadn't thought about taking this approach. One of the reasons I
decided to use dropboats is that not only can they drop off the troopers,
but when the mission is complete (or aborted, or ignored when a bigger
situation crops up), they can come back and pick them back up again. (Even
Heinlein's cap-troopers needed 'retrieval boats' to get back up to orbit.)
However, your re-entry capsules do sound as though they could be tweaked
to solve one of the problems I've been having - when the drop zone is too
nasty to land the dropships, how to get the droptroops from, say, a couple
dozen kilometres up to the ground. The dropships would make the rocket
unnecessary, but that space could be more usefully used for such useful
things as chaff, flares, decoys, and similar toys.
Does anybody else care to take their hand to writing up such a critter,
or shall I see what I can come up with without G:Vehicles? (And yes, it
/is/ on my Christmas list... <g>)
Foxtaur
>> Imagine a steel telephone pole dropped from orbit and landing
>> on top of a tank. Or aircraft carrier. Or just nearby.
> Considering the "easy" attitude to nuclear stuff they would propably use
> spent uranium (the same thing some tanks use as ammo) or something like
> it instead of steel. Just a detail.
A good thought. I'm thinking of basing the system on the Railguns in
G:Space, page 126, where it mentions that "railgun ammunition consists of
dense tungsten or depleted-uranium projectiles".
MA Lloyd
>> Considering the "easy" attitude to nuclear stuff they would propably use
>> spent uranium (the same thing some tanks use as ammo) or something like
>> it instead of steel. Just a detail.
> A good thought. I'm thinking of basing the system on the Railguns in
>G:Space, page 126, where it mentions that "railgun ammunition consists of
>dense tungsten or depleted-uranium projectiles".
Uranium burns easily, even steel will burn, and it melts at pretty low
temperatures. Things that hit the atmosphere at re-entry velocities
need to be made of, or at least coated with something less temperature
sensitive. You could have a dense penetrator in a ceramic or mineral
fiber sheath, but it's not clear to me it would be any more effective
than solid artificial rock.
--
-- MA Lloyd (mall...@io.com)
Gregory L. Hansen
Uranium oxide?
--
"Jugo de naranja, loco con pulpa!"
David Crowe
: First, some background:
: I'm working up a nifty little TL8 setting, where the PCs will be aboard
: the HMSS Sir Isaac Brock. This ship usually just quietly orbits the Earth;
: but whenever the higher-ups decide to intervene in a military hotspot, the
: Brock is quite the useful tool. It has around sixty nukes it can drop if
: the mission is just to utterly destroy a given target (tactical nuclear
: warheads have lost some of their social stigma after being used so
: liberally by both sides in the decade-long European/Islamic war); but when
: the object is to do a /controlled/ amount of damage, the Brock sends in
: its dropships.
If it is a peacekeeping tool, why does it need to be a spacecraft? ICBMs
could deliver the nukes just as well, perhaps even satillite launched
ones. Suborbital shuttles hops could deliver troops anywhere on Earth in
just a little more time, but for a lot less money. And it would be more
efficient to keep troops on the Earth rather than cooped up in a ship for
months at a time, losing muscle mass due to low gravity, to say nothing of
the difficulties in training.
You mentioned interplanetary colonies, but I don't think they'd be
advanced enough to require being nuked if there is trouble.
Are there other combat spacecraft around? Why is it needed?
--
David "No Nickname" Crowe http://www.primenet.com/~jetman
<Moan> "This episode of 'Buffy' is filled with continuity errors!
But I can't reach my internet newsgroup to *complain*!
Worst punishment ever!"
-Comic store guy in Hell, Simpsons Treehouse of Horror #6.
woef...@my-deja.com
Foxtaur <spam.fox...@spam.warren.kill.com> wrote:
> Unless, of course, some kind soul here happens to have already
worked out
> some details...? :)
Some Stats I worked out a while back...
Assuming a 20mm dia projectile with a 10:1 l:w ratio we get these stats
for steel and DPU projectiles
volume for both = 3141.6cc = 3.1416 liters
mass 22.0 kg 34.6 kg
kinetic energy at escape velocity (11.18 km/s)
MJ 1.37e+9 2e+9
potential energy at an orbital height of 90 miles
MJ 31 49
In comparison, here are the stats I worked out for a 20 mm extremely
long barreled railgun stats for the reloadable one first, the one shot
stats follow
Damage 96d 144d (this converts to 6d*16 and 6d*24)
1/2D 8000 (yards for both)
Max 19,000 (yards for both)
Acc 19
Wt 720 360 (pounds)
SS 25 20
Rof 1/3 1NR (can't reload the one shot)
WPS 48.5
VPS .3
CPS 388
Power 290900 kWs (or 290.9 MJ)
Cost 368000 184000
I may be off on the WPS (I don't have my copy of G:Vehicles here, but
the GURPS Vehicles Designer program disagrees on the WPS by almost two
orders of magnitude. This wouldn't change the damage calculations, but
would affect the the cost and volume per shot numbers.)
Using APC (tungsten carbide) give a Damage of 6d*24 (2) and triples
the CPS.
Using DPU gives 6d*32 (3) and multiplies the CPS by six.
The conclusion I came to after working up these numbers was that the
damage from a 20mm Thor type system could range from 6d*16 up to just
about anything I felt like assigning (The max kinetic energy of the
projectiles detailed at the beginning of the post are a million times
greater than the max given by the railgun. If Damage scales with energy
that means upto 6d*16,000,000. If it scales with momentum, Dam would
max at ~6d*16,000 (!)
YMMV, and my calcs may be off. I was satisfied with deciding that an
effective Thor could kill just about anything.
On another note. The BEST TL8 weapons I have seen were the ones posted
in this newsgroup 4-6 weeks ago.
Search for "TSG-115", "Ares-12A", "P-15 -- the SMG from hell",
"Disposable Cluster Munition", or "Grenade launcher for the ARES-12"
on deja, or whatever newsreader you use. Very effective weapons.
Paul
Elmar
overw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <VcvV5.161192$UO.6...@news22.bellglobal.com>,
> Foxtaur <spam.fox...@spam.warren.kill.com> wrote:
> > John Ringo <john...@cuthis.mindspring.exthisout.com.invalid>
wrote:
> >
> > > You need to consider what sort of "artillery" they can call on.
Use
> Thors,
> > > they may not be in the "tech inventory" but they're a natural for
> the
> > > situation you describe.
> >
> on
> > Deja and Google, all I can find is a "Self-Propelled Heavy
Artillery"
> for
> > Battletech / Mechwarrior, and the McDonnell Thor IRBM from circa-
1960.
> >
> > --
> > Foxtaur
> > The Rrangoon species is available at http://www.phantomcross.org/
> >
>
> iron and a guidance package that will survive re-entry and do damage
> based on the kinetic energy of the impact.
There is a maximum speed you would reach in the atmosphere, a sky diver
will not get infinetely faster. So your crowbar will reach a very high
speed, but I guess it would be better to dump it from a high flying
aeroplane.
Elmar
--
"President, n. The leading figure in a small group of men
of whom - and of whom only - it is positively
known that immense numbers of their countrymen
did not want any of them for President."
Ambrose Bierce
Please contact me with kn...@888.nu
(I hate spam)
Mirko Armelyan
First of all, if the main base of your troops is on a planet, and the
likely target areas are on that same planet, I don't know why you should
have a stop in orbit. Remember the starship troopers attacked _other_
planets. A huge airbase in some secure area and a few good old strategic
cargo planes should be enough. You'll also need a fleet of tanker, attack,
air-superiority aircraft.
Why, once you are there, you can also have them based on a few carriers...
and you'll need escorts for the carriers, AEW and ASW aircraft... and
subs... and... ehm, this reminds me...
Assuming you need to keep an eye on the colonies, too, say on Mars or the
Moon, then you need the orbit-to-planet capability.
For that, the individual re-entry vehicles are a nice idea, but costly,
since they are used once and then thrown away. If your drop troopers'
battlesuit includes the ever-popular backpack rocket or jet, I'd suggest a
free-fall drop from about 30kms of altitude.
At that height, the dropships won't be very vulnerable unless the
opposition has either anti-orbital weapons or state-of-the-art fighters
carrying dedicated missiles.
The troopers will drop freely, like bombs. Their acceleration will end when
they reach terminal velocity. The first main difficulty of such a HALO
drop, the environmental conditions, is already solved thanks to their vacc
suits. Inside, they could wear a G-suit too. Outside the suit, they will
wear a parachute harness with a deceleration parachute or two. These will
be automatically opened by an altimeter switch. Redundancy is recommended
for chutes and altimeter. The opening altitude and the deceleration time
can be custom-designed on the basis of tactical considerations.
The parachute is not designed to make the troopers land as paratroopers.
Instead, once they have reached a "reasonable" drop speed, they will ignite
their backpack rockets. This automatically detaches the parachute harness.
Now it's time to solve the other problem of such a launch; the troopers may
stray tens of kms from the intended DZ. This isn't entirely a bad thing,
because if they are detected, the enemy still won't have a clear idea of
their intended target. Once detached from the parachutes, with a GPS and
their backpack rockets they can correct that.
There is little the opposition can do. As I said, the dropships themselves
aren't easy to reach. The individual troopers will present a very small
radar signature, which can be further reduced by radar-stealth measures for
the suit surface. I suppose IR cloaking is already a feature. And they
aren't an easy target anyway as long as they drop as bombs.
The decelaration phase makes the trooper more vulnerable. However, using
the backpack jets to decelerate would consume a lot of fuel. In the face of
serious opposition, the parachute harness can be additionally fitted with a
radar warning receiver and a chaff dispenser, automatically fired by the
receiver itself.
If the enemy can concentrate a massive AA barrage, then decoys must be
launched before and together with the troopers, and pre-emptive strikes
carried out.
> My latest ideas for arming these fellows is to split them into 4-man
> "Fire Teams", carrying four vibro-blades, three Assault Chainguns, an EM
> Mortar or automatic EM Grenade Launcher, various grenades, and
ammunition.
> I also want at least a one-shot anti-vehicle weapon,
Why? If you have a grenade launcher, you may have RPG-like rounds with
shaped-charge warheads.
> Should I try to come up with one or two drop-attack-aircraft, for when
> a nuke's too big but fragmentation-mortar-shells are too small? What sort
> of craft would you design?
>
There are many other things a big missile can carry apart from a nuclear
warhead. It depends on the target.
A single non-moving hardened target, such as an underground complex or
heavily armored bunker: use some kind of penetration+explosive warhead
(several types are available).
Several smaller hardened but non airtight bunkers/buildings: FAE.
Several hardened airtight targets, either moving or not (tanks/bunkers): a
bus missile carrying several warheads each with its own guidance system,
SICM or smart bombs.
Non-armored troops in the open: ICM, SICM or a giant proximity-fused
beehive round.
A SAM battalion: a bus missile carrying a few anti-radiation missiles and
ICM.
A carrier group: a bus missile carrying a few SS-N-12...
A mixture of targets: a bus missile carrying a mixture of warheads!
Hope this helps,
Mirko
Foxtaur
>> First, some background:
>> I'm working up a nifty little TL8 setting, where the PCs will be
>> aboard the HMSS Sir Isaac Brock. This ship usually just quietly
>> orbits the Earth; but whenever the higher-ups decide to intervene in
>> a military hotspot, the Brock is quite the useful tool. It has around
>> sixty nukes it can drop if the mission is just to utterly destroy a
>> given target (tactical nuclear warheads have lost some of their
>> social stigma after being used so liberally by both sides in the
>> decade-long European/Islamic war); but when the object is to do a
>> /controlled/ amount of damage, the Brock sends in its dropships.
Now here's the sort of reply I was really hoping for - forcing me to
think hard about making sure the setting I'm inventing is self-
consistent.
> If it is a peacekeeping tool, why does it need to be a spacecraft?
> ICBMs could deliver the nukes just as well, perhaps even satellite
> launched ones.
Nukes aren't always the appropriate military response - if your
neighbour's dog messes on your lawn, would you use a grenade? (Well,
assuming that you want to keep living in the same community afterwards.
<grin>) Heinlein mentioned in "Starship Troopers" that 'war is
/controlled/ violence'.
In another part of this thread, we're discussing using railguns for
bombardment from orbit (project Thor), which is one stage less
destructive than nukes - but still isn't necessarily the right solution.
> Suborbital shuttles hops could deliver troops anywhere on Earth in
> just a little more time, but for a lot less money.
The dropships themselves seem to be reasonable facsimiles of such
shuttles - in fact, they're single-stage-to-orbit and -back-to-Earth
shuttles, as well. So, I assume that your main question is why they
should be based in a mobile orbiting weapons platform rather than
somewhere on Earth (ignoring, for the moment, any possible military
activity in orbit, on the Moon, or further out).
One possible answer is that 'just a little more time' might be just a
little too much - for example, if somebody starts cooking up a new
bioplague and is about to install it in some missile warheads, then time
is of the essence. (And in good action movie format, seconds could
easily make the difference. <g>)
> And it would be more efficient to keep troops on the Earth
> rather than cooped up in a ship for months at a time, losing muscle
> mass due to low gravity, to say nothing of the difficulties in
> training.
With the TL8 drug "Ursaline", the negative biological effects of
microgravity are prevented - and I made sure to add the cost of a 2-year
supply to the Brock. :)
As for training, the only additional training for troopers stationed in
freefall would be a minimum of 100 hours to give them "Freefall/TL8
(P/A)" of DX-1. (More training wouldn't hurt, of course. :) ) And given
that the troopers' mission destinations are going to include the
occasional orbiting workshack, they're going to need such training
regardless.
> You mentioned interplanetary colonies, but I don't think they'd be
> advanced enough to require being nuked if there is trouble.
That would depend on the specific colony - who sponsors it; whether
it's in orbit, on the surface, or buried; how big it is; and so forth.
Also, given that a 10-kiloton nuclear missile costs only $464,000, and a
launcher $3,000, well, that's less than the smallest power plant (solar
panel or fission reactor) a colony would need to power its life support.
Here's a sheet for a basic orbital habitat that could be stuffed nearly
anywhere in orbit or dropped onto (or buried inside) Luna, Mars, or
anywhere else. The only thing I'm leaving out is the armor to protect
the inhabitants from radiation (such as from solar flares). cDR 1, which
gives a PF 10, would add 25 tons and $300,000; to increase the PF by 10,
double the cDR, mass, and cost.
Spaces Mass Cost Notes
Hull, 5k cf, USL (10) 4 0.1 Area: 2 ksf.
Small Bridge 1 2.9 1 Power: neg.
Total Life Support 0.5 1.25 0.0025 Power: 0.025. 2 people.
Bunk Room 1 0.5 0.0005 Power: neg.
Crew, 1 - 0.1 -
Fission Core 1 4 0.61
Fission Power 0.5 2 0.4 1 MW.
Fissionables - - 0.04 1-year supply.
Cargo Space 6 - 0
Total Mass: 14.75 tons
Total Cost: $2,153,000, + $40,000/year
SM: +6
cSM, ASig, PSig: -4
cHP: 200
If the mini-habitat is in less than 0.1 G, the fission power plant
could be replaced by Solar Panels - though a battery should be added in
case of shadow.
Solar Panel 1 12 1.44 1.9 MW.
Battery 0.5 12.5 2.5 22,500 MW-seconds
Total Mass: 32.75 tons
Total Cost: $5,043,000
(The battery can power Life Support for 250 hours.)
These things aren't exactly cheap, but I've seen the occasional house
that sells for more. The perfect home for the eccentric millionaire, who
might fill the empty space of his residence with a half-space ion drive
and half-space fuel tank to keep it in a given orbit; add luxury cabin
or two and a bit more life support for the family; toss in a weapon or
three to defend the homestead; and/or install a lab or workshop to
putter around in and try to invent the next greatest thing since sliced
bread.
And that's just /tiny/ habitats, owned by individuals.
> Are there other combat spacecraft around?
Indeed there are - the Brock is one of the largest, able to sustain
itself independently for two years without refueling.
> Why is it needed?
Well, let's say a member of the Islamic Axis sponsors a hostile
takeover of one of the uranium mines in the lunar highlands. Or an
American-sponsored group tries to steal some of Canada's clean
freshwater reserves. Or China asks for a little help when American
pioneers in the New West (Siberia) ignore the border. Or yet another
bioagent is released in the Balkans... Or anything else I can come up
with (or you can suggest <g>).
I'd like to hear any other thoughts you have.
Foxtaur
weapons for orbital bombardment; and after reviewing them, using them
that way seems rather similar to Thor. So, here are some numbers for TL8
railguns.
All three have an SS of 30, Acc of 19, and Malf of ver. Given that in
combat, a railgun can fire once every ten seconds, including taking
three seconds for the Acc bonus, they have an RoF of 1/7. Railguns have
a density of 13.2 pounds per cubic foot, while ammunition has a density
of 64 pounds per cubic foot. They're fired using the skill Gunner
(Railgun).
A Light Railgun weighs 3.3 tons (6,600 lbs), has a volume of 500 cubic
feet, costs $2.5 million, has a 1/2D range in atmosphere of 12,000 and a
Max range of 24,000, and causes (4d+1)x100 damage with an armor divisor
of 3. Each shot requires 20 MW.
Ammunition for a light railgun costs $10,222.22 per shot, weighs 71 1/9
lbs, and has a volume of 1 1/9 cubic feet (1,920 cubic inches).
A Medium Railgun weighs 33 tons (66,000 lbs), has a volume of 5,000
cubic feet, costs $25 million, has a 1/2D range in atmosphere of 36,000
and a Max range of 72,000, and causes (6d+2)x100(3) damage. Each shot
requires 660 MW.
Ammo for a medium railgun costs $102,222.22 per shot, weighs 711 1/9
lbs, and has a volume of 11 1/9 cubic feet (19,200 cubic inches).
A Heavy Railgun weighs 330 tons (660,000 lbs), has a volume of 50,000
cubic feet, costs $250 million, has a 1/2D range in atmosphere of
120,000 and a Max range of 240,000, and inflicts a respectable 9dx300(3)
on its targets. Each shot requires 2,000 MW.
Ammunition for a heavy railgun costs $920,000 per shot, weighs 3.2
tons (6,400 lbs), and has a volume of 100 cubic feet.
The smallest ship-scale battery has a volume of 250 cubic feet (say, 5
x 5 x 10 feet), weighs 12.5 tons (25,000 lb), and costs $2.5 million. It
stores 22,500 MW-seconds, enough to fire a light railgun 1,125 times, a
medium one 34 times, or a heavy one 11 times.
A slight strangeness creeps in when looking at how much surface area on
a ship railguns require. A light railgun needs 200 square feet - but
with a volume of 500 cubic feet, that seems to imply that it's only 2.5
feet thick. Similarly, a medium railgun needs 500 square feet, implying
that it's 10 feet thick, and a heavy railgun 1,500 square feet, implying
a depth of 33 feet, 4 inches.
Foxtaur
> On another note. The BEST TL8 weapons I have seen were the ones posted
> in this newsgroup 4-6 weeks ago.
>
> Search for "TSG-115", "Ares-12A", "P-15 -- the SMG from hell",
> "Disposable Cluster Munition", or "Grenade launcher for the ARES-12"
> on deja, or whatever newsreader you use. Very effective weapons.
Strangely enough, when I searched Deja, I was able to find some of the
threads, but whoever posted the initial messages and any statistics about
those weapons doesn't have their messages archived there.
cra...@hotmail.com
Florian Berner <fbe...@gmx.net> wrote:
> > Imagine a steel telephone pole dropped from orbit and landing
> > on top of a tank. Or aircraft carrier. Or just nearby.
> >
use
> spent uranium (the same thing some tanks use as ammo) or something
like
> it instead of steel. Just a detail.
I meant steel as descriptive rather than factual, though
for telephone pole-sized projectiles, it would be much
cheaper.
I would recommend tungsten (or a tungsten glass) over uranium.
Uranium has a lower melting point than iron, about 1/3 of
tungsten's melting point. Tungsten probably wouldn't ablate
to speak of during re-entry. Tungsten is also slightly denser
than uranium (19.3 grams per cubic centimeter vs 19.1g/cc,
according to the Metals Handbook).
Tungsten would be a comparative pain in the ass to work,
though, due to its obscene melting point and stiffness.
Fortunately, it's TL8. It might be feasible to cast tungsten
with TL8 technology.
--
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
"I told [Clinton] I'd be happy to take the first year and then he
could have the second year while they're working this out. But
this sucks..." --Bob Dole
cra...@hotmail.com
Foxtaur <spam.fox...@spam.warren.kill.com> wrote:
> Must... not... spout... off... <ahem>
> I actually happen to have a copy of 'Footfall' on my desk
> right now, though I read it quite a while ago and have forgotten
> quite a few details (which I've been telling myself is a Good
> Thing :) ). I've also been telling myself that I'm using it as
> an example of how /not/ to wage an interplanetary-scale war -
> but that might just be because of the
> seemingly-forced stupidity of the fithp...
Oh, yeah, the aliens were idiots. I don't recommend their
tactics at all. But their technology is a great start for
TL8 space-land warfare.
>
> > Anyway, Thors are (probably metallic) projectiles dropped from
> > orbit ranging in size (depending on who you talk to) from
> > crowbars to telephone poles.
> >
> > If you figure your typical, quite aerodynamic Thor will retain
> > a few miles per second from its orbital velocity of ~5mps
> > after re-entry, you've got a projectile moving 2-3 times as
> > fast as a current tank cannon's APFSDS shell. Guidance is
> > quite likely used.
> >
> > Imagine a steel telephone pole dropped from orbit and landing
> > on top of a tank. Or aircraft carrier. Or just nearby.
>
> As the saying goes, "Cool". :)
>
> Now, all I have to do is come up with some official-sounding GURPS
> numbers for such a beastie... I'll probably end up basing the
launcher on
> the railgun listed in G:Space, but have to come up with new damage
> numbers.
> Unless, of course, some kind soul here happens to have already
worked out
> some details...? :)
>
A couple dozen kilometers might not be safe. If there are
space-to-ground weapons, ground-to-space weapons should exist.
A garage-built rocket could toss a cloud of gravel into the
path of a shuttle dipping into the atmosphere to drop troops.
After all, you don't need outstanding technology to get
*altitude* - you need fairly advanced technology to get into
*orbit*. The V-2's could reach, what, 100km? when fired
straight up.
But, there's a solution. If you look at the link I gave you
in the last post, note some of those drop capsules covered
over 11,000km between de-orbit burn and landing.
The shuttles change orbit from the warship to line up the
deployment of the capsules (which may amount to no trivial
effort - IIRC, changing from an equatorial to a polar orbit
requires more fuel than getting from ground to orbit). The
capsules are released and the shuttles begin to dodge or
head back to the warship.
The capsules, presenting a multitude of small targets, are
not so easily flattened by ground-to-space weaponry. The
shuttles can later make supply and recovery drops. And capsules
don't represent hundred million dollar investments (or however
much the shuttles cost) to put in harm's way until local SSPAM
(Surface-to-SPace-and-Air Missiles) sites are cleared out.
Thus, even with capsules, shuttles sound like a reasonable thing
to keep on the warship, given the limits of TL8 technology.
Shawn Wilson
> Nukes aren't always the appropriate military response - if your
> neighbour's dog messes on your lawn, would you use a grenade? (Well,
> assuming that you want to keep living in the same community afterwards.
> <grin>) Heinlein mentioned in "Starship Troopers" that 'war is
> /controlled/ violence'.
Of course that didn't stop the good guys from stocking 'planetbuster' bombs.
cra...@hotmail.com
Elmar <elma...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> There is a maximum speed you would reach in the atmosphere,
> a sky diver will not get infinetely faster. So your crowbar
> will reach a very high speed, but I guess it would be better
> to dump it from a high flying aeroplane.
Yes, terminal velocity, the upper speed limit for a given object
in a given atmosphere.
Saying the "crowbar will reach a very high speed" is perhaps
not the best way to phrase it. The crowbar is already at a
very, very high speed while it's in orbit: 17,500mph. This is
probably WAY above it's terminal velocity.
The crowbar, the Thor shot, won't be gaining anymore velocity
from gravity on its fall, it will only be slowing down.
The "de-orbit burn" that drops the crowbar from orbit does not
have to change that 17,500mph much, just alters its direction to
intersect the atmosphere. So it's reasonable to assume the Thor
shot is traveling at 17,500mph when it's "fired" at a target.
Given a long enough time, the Thor shot WOULD slow to its
terminal velocity.
However, the time from de-orbit burn to impact is *shorter* than
the time it takes an aerodynamic object like a Thor shot to
reach terminal velocity. In other words, the Thor shot won't
have enough time to slow down to terminal velocity.
Very much like a meteorite.
A real world example of an object in space hitting the ground
faster than its terminal velocity can be found in the bottom
of Meteor Crater in Arizona. A boxcar-sized meteorite hit the
ground at several miles per second, blowing out a crater a
mile across. Had the meteorite been traveling at its terminal
velocity (probably a few hundred miles per hour for a
non-aerodynamic lump of rock), you would've gotten a much,
much smaller crater.
Thus I don't think dropping Thors from airplanes would be
as effective as dropping them from space, unless the airplanes
can also travel 17,500mph.
cra...@hotmail.com
David Crowe <jet...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> If it is a peacekeeping tool, why does it need to be a
> spacecraft? ICBMs could deliver the nukes just as well,
> perhaps even satillite launched ones.
Not necessarily. Nukes from orbit take a few minutes,
compared to 15-45 minutes for ICBMs.
The reduced response time can be important in the face
of TL8 anti-space weaponry.
A warship also presents the option of non-nuclear ground
bombardment. The munitions a warship drops from orbit are
probably cheaper than those launched by ICBMs or massdrivers
or HELL systems or Gerald Bull superguns, etc. No need
to survive launch or travel as far.
Not to mention lasers for instant ground support. A warship
would be great for that. I'd take a mobile warship's lasers
over a low-agility battlesat anyday.
> Suborbital shuttles hops could deliver troops anywhere
> on Earth in just a little more time, but for a lot less money.
Why do you think they'd be cheaper? A suborbital hop takes
about as much fuel as getting to orbit, a few tens of dollars
per pound to orbit for oxygen and hydrogen rockets.
And the thing is, a shuttle on a suborbital hop will probably
spend most of its fuel on the flight there. The gas gauge
will be on 'E' when it arrives. OTOH, A shuttle dropping from an
orbiting warship can have full tanks when it lands, and is thus
able to return home under its own power.
> And it would be more efficient to keep troops on the Earth
> rather than cooped up in a ship for months at a time, losing
> muscle mass due to low gravity, to say nothing of
> the difficulties in training.
Foxtaur, was there a spin-section on your ship?
The warship might separate into habitat and counterweight
sections to spin end over end while on a long patrol. That'd
be fine for training and maintaining muscle mass.
>
> You mentioned interplanetary colonies, but I don't think they'd be
> advanced enough to require being nuked if there is trouble.
A 10km long, 2km diameter O'Niell habitat with a 5m-thick lunar
slag hull would probably ignore conventional weapons, and its
militia could overwhelm a typical Marine contingent of a warship.
You might need nukes for that.
Nukes also make great anti-missiles weapons in space.
Xiphias Gladius
> "Foxtaur" <spam.fox...@spam.warren.kill.com> wrote in message
> news:W5MV5.162261$UO.6...@news22.bellglobal.com...
>> Nukes aren't always the appropriate military response - if your
>> neighbour's dog messes on your lawn, would you use a grenade? (Well,
>> assuming that you want to keep living in the same community afterwards.
>> <grin>) Heinlein mentioned in "Starship Troopers" that 'war is
>> /controlled/ violence'.
> Of course that didn't stop the good guys from stocking 'planetbuster' bombs.
'Course not. But you don't use 'em if you're planning on using the
planet afterwards.
- Ian
--
Marriage, n: The state or condition of a community consisting of a master,
a mistress, and two slaves, making, in all, two. -- Ambrose Bierce
SSBB Diplomatic Corps; Boston, Massachusetts
Gregory L. Hansen
>: First, some background:
>
>: I'm working up a nifty little TL8 setting, where the PCs will be aboard
>: the HMSS Sir Isaac Brock. This ship usually just quietly orbits the Earth;
>: but whenever the higher-ups decide to intervene in a military hotspot, the
>: Brock is quite the useful tool. It has around sixty nukes it can drop if
>: the mission is just to utterly destroy a given target (tactical nuclear
>: warheads have lost some of their social stigma after being used so
>: liberally by both sides in the decade-long European/Islamic war); but when
>: the object is to do a /controlled/ amount of damage, the Brock sends in
>: its dropships.
>
>If it is a peacekeeping tool, why does it need to be a spacecraft? ICBMs
>could deliver the nukes just as well, perhaps even satillite launched
>ones. Suborbital shuttles hops could deliver troops anywhere on Earth in
>just a little more time, but for a lot less money. And it would be more
>efficient to keep troops on the Earth rather than cooped up in a ship for
>months at a time, losing muscle mass due to low gravity, to say nothing of
>the difficulties in training.
For that matter, why drop troops instead of airborne rangers or air
cavalry? And is 160 troops really enough to do anything? The entire 82nd
Airborne Division would be toast if they tried to stop a large mechanized
assault on their own. A peacekeeping mission usually involves
semi-permanently stationed troops policing a wide area; think in terms of
tens of thousands. That's partly because of the large distances involved,
partly because of the large number of bad guys involved, and partly
because you usually can't just carpet-bomb a limited region and declare
success. Any peacekeeping that can be done with 160 drop troops is a
minor affair.
>You mentioned interplanetary colonies, but I don't think they'd be
>advanced enough to require being nuked if there is trouble.
And if so, it would probably be sensible to have another police ship.
woef...@my-deja.com
reactive, it is a Uranium based ceramic, rather than the metal. I
also understood that the fuel pellets were Uranium Oxide, rather than
metallic U
Paul
cra...@hotmail.com
woef...@my-deja.com wrote:
> My understanding of "Depleted Uranium" is that because Uranium is so
> reactive, it is a Uranium based ceramic, rather than the metal. I
> also understood that the fuel pellets were Uranium Oxide, rather than
> metallic U
"Depleted" uranium is just uranium with less of the U-235
isotope than naturally occuring uranium. It's not a special
ceramic - it's a description of uranium with a different
isotope mix than natural uranium. It's the counterpart to
"enriched" uranium.
Uranium is not a particularly chemically reactive. Or, for
that matter, very radioactive. It's a heavy metal and, to
that end, can be poisonous like lead. I think. Uranium
hexafluoride probably sucks, but not metallic uranium.
In fact, I'm pretty sure it's used in raw metallic form in
ammunition. I don't think uranium oxide is nearly as dense
as uranium. Density is why uranium is even in consideration
as anti-armor ammo.
Uranium is put into an oxide form when used as reactor fuel for
temperature resistance - metallic uranium has much too low of
a melting point. And chemical resistance, come to think of it.
I bet the metallic form would corrode in a water-cooled reactor,
while it's usually hard to corrode ANY oxide.
--
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
"I told [Clinton] I'd be happy to take the first year and then he
could have the second year while they're working this out. But
this sucks..." --Bob Dole
Florian Berner
> I meant steel as descriptive rather than factual, though
> for telephone pole-sized projectiles, it would be much
> cheaper.
mass and probably easier to dedect. And Armyes usally don't care how
much they spend for new weapons. ;-)
> I would recommend tungsten (or a tungsten glass) over uranium.
> Uranium has a lower melting point than iron, about 1/3 of
> tungsten's melting point. Tungsten probably wouldn't ablate
> to speak of during re-entry. Tungsten is also slightly denser
> than uranium (19.3 grams per cubic centimeter vs 19.1g/cc,
> according to the Metals Handbook).
A propos melting: How about a projectile that is suppesed to be
(partially) melted when it reaches the ground? Some kind of HEAT-Effect
or as an Anti-Infantiy warhead. Just imagine when a dozen (or so)
balls/sticks/drops projectiles splatters down on an infantry unit
hitting the ground and covering the area with superheated metal.
Possible? Effective?
> Tungsten would be a comparative pain in the ass to work,
> though, due to its obscene melting point and stiffness.
> Fortunately, it's TL8. It might be feasible to cast tungsten
> with TL8 technology.
>
How difficult is it to produce/get? I think Uranium is realtivly easy
aviable, but I'm not an expert.
cu
Flo
Gregory L. Hansen
>My understanding of "Depleted Uranium" is that because Uranium is so
>reactive, it is a Uranium based ceramic, rather than the metal. I
>also understood that the fuel pellets were Uranium Oxide, rather than
>metallic U
Depleted uranium is largely U-238, natural uranium with most of the U-235
removed. It's cheap and abundant, about a dollar per pound in
sufficiently large quantities, because of the nuclear power and nuclear
weapons industries, which extract the U-235 and have a bunch of scrap
metal left over. You can have peices made of depleted uranium, there are
a few companies listed in the Thomas Register ( www.thomasregister.com )
that will do it for you. They ask $7000 to $10,000 for the mold, then the
cost of the metal. Depleted uranium is used as ballast and counterweights
because it's so heavy. It's also used in shielding when, for instance, an
oil company does activation analysis of a well. They bring a source into
the hole, open the shield, and measure the radiation induced in the
surrounding materials. And, of course, it's used in tank armor and
anti-tank munitions.
Uranium oxide is a ceramic. It's the most common form of fuel in a
reactor. They put uranium oxide pellets into tubes of stainless steel or
zirconium, with the inside diameter slightly larger than the pellets, and
fill it with helium gas. It's durable and heat-resistant. It also has
poor thermal conductivity, so the middle of a pellet gets much hotter than
the outside of the tube.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> My understanding of "Depleted Uranium" is that because Uranium is so
> reactive, it is a Uranium based ceramic, rather than the metal. I
> also understood that the fuel pellets were Uranium Oxide, rather than
> metallic U
No, it's Uranium Carbide becuase that is harder than metallic uranium.
Hardness is paramount when designing an armor penetrator.
PS, it's "Depleted" because it's had the more radioactive isotopes removed
from it. DU rounds are actually *less* radioactive than naturally
occouring Uranium.
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
Foxtaur
>> Hm; I hadn't thought about taking this approach. One of the reasons I
>> decided to use dropboats is that not only can they drop off the
>> troopers, but when the mission is complete (or aborted, or ignored
>> when a bigger situation crops up), they can come back and pick them
>> back up again. (Even Heinlein's cap-troopers needed 'retrieval boats'
>> to get back up to orbit.)
>> However, your re-entry capsules do sound as though they could be
>> tweaked to solve one of the problems I've been having - when the drop
>> zone is too nasty to land the dropships, how to get the droptroops
>> from, say, a couple dozen kilometres up to the ground.
> A couple dozen kilometers might not be safe. If there are
> space-to-ground weapons, ground-to-space weapons should exist.
> A garage-built rocket could toss a cloud of gravel into the
> path of a shuttle dipping into the atmosphere to drop troops.
>
> After all, you don't need outstanding technology to get
> altitude - you need fairly advanced technology to get into
> orbit . The V-2's could reach, what, 100km? when fired
> straight up.
A good point - I'm going to have to remember to make sure the PCs'
shuttles don't always have a smooth ride down. <evil grin>
Foxtaur
> David Crowe <jet...@primenet.com> wrote:
>> And it would be more efficient to keep troops on the Earth
>> rather than cooped up in a ship for months at a time, losing
>> muscle mass due to low gravity, to say nothing of
>> the difficulties in training.
> Foxtaur, was there a spin-section on your ship?
No - but there was a supply of Ursaline, the TL8 drug that prevents
muscle and bone degeneration from living in microgravity/freefall for
extended periods.
Foxtaur
>>> I'm working up a nifty little TL8 setting, where the PCs will be
>>> aboard the HMSS Sir Isaac Brock. This ship usually just quietly
>>> orbits the Earth; but whenever the higher-ups decide to intervene in
>>> a military hotspot, the Brock is quite the useful tool. It has
>>> around sixty nukes it can drop if the mission is just to utterly
>>> destroy a given target (tactical nuclear warheads have lost some of
>>> their social stigma after being used so liberally by both sides in
>>> the decade-long European/Islamic war); but when the object is to do
>>> a /controlled/ amount of damage, the Brock sends in its dropships.
>> If it is a peacekeeping tool, why does it need to be a spacecraft?
>> ICBMs could deliver the nukes just as well, perhaps even satillite
>> launched ones. Suborbital shuttles hops could deliver troops
>> anywhere on Earth in just a little more time, but for a lot less
>> money. And it would be more efficient to keep troops on the Earth
>> rather than cooped up in a ship for months at a time, losing muscle
>> mass due to low gravity, to say nothing of the difficulties in
>> training.
> For that matter, why drop troops instead of airborne rangers or air
> cavalry? And is 160 troops really enough to do anything? The
> entire 82nd Airborne Division would be toast if they tried to stop
> a large mechanized assault on their own.
'Large mechanized assaults' are currently out of military fashion, what
with 70-pound tungsten crowbars able to be tossed from orbit by anybody
willing to have the launching craft targetted. Also, the PC's company of
drop troopers isn't necessarily going to be the /only/ troops sent to
any given target zone - but they're the ones who are going to be sent
(and arrive) first, and get to blow up any artillery that would knock
out ground-based troops' carrier-craft. Plus, just because the drop
troopers have suits designed to survive doesn't mean every E4 does -
such suits are expensive, meaning the drop troopers get sent to some of
the ugliest drop zones.
> A peacekeeping mission usually involves semi-permanently stationed
> troops policing a wide area; think in terms of tens of thousands.
> That's partly because of the large distances involved, partly because
> of the large number of bad guys involved, and partly because you
> usually can't just carpet-bomb a limited region and declare success.
> Any peacekeeping that can be done with 160 drop troops is a minor
> affair.
My uncle served as a blue helmet in Cyprus, so I've done some reading
on peacekeeping - which isn't the Brock's primary mission, by the way.
>> You mentioned interplanetary colonies, but I don't think they'd be
>> advanced enough to require being nuked if there is trouble.
> And if so, it would probably be sensible to have another police
> ship.
And here's we get into the political situation, which I'm hoping is
going to provide as many plot-hooks and role-playing possibilities as
possible.
The Brock (with a different name at the time) was originally part of
the American space-fleet. However, not that long before the game starts,
the US and China have been negotiating with each other about their
respective mass destructive capabilities; ever since Russia sold Siberia
to the US, the two Powers have been eyeing each other warily. (The
Islamic Axis and Europe, the other Big Powers, are a bit worn out after
a decade of ground warfare.) One point that the Chinese suggested, and
the US agreed to, was to transfer some of its military spacecraft to
other nations in the Americas (which are pretty much under USA control -
eg, members of NATO [which no longer includes Europe], using the US
dollar for currency - even if they're still technically independant).
The biggest warship was transferred to the US's largest trading partner,
Canada.
Canada is a country 'caught in the middle'. Ever since the southern
bits of Quebec seperated and joined the European Union, the rest of the
country has had even more of an identity crisis than it does at the
present. One of the few absolutely certain definitive points of its
culture is that it isn't American. (For example, Russia sold its veto
and permanent seat in the UN to Canada - but that body has become less
relevant every year, and when the USA acquired Siberia, becoming the
largest country, parts of the Canadian psyche had nervous breakdowns.)
Canada is pretty good friends with Europe, part of the non-US power bloc;
when Fidel died, Canada welcomed Cuba with open arms; and whenever
Canada can advance its own interests at the expense of the US - or
simply tweak the Americans noses - they do so.
The Brock is captained by a Canadian, and many of the drop troopers are
Canucks... but most of the naval crew is still American (until Canada
can field sufficiently trained replacements), and the ship is on "semi-
permanent loan" to NATO (which means effectively under American
control).
Luke Campbell
>
> A propos melting: How about a projectile that is suppesed to be
> (partially) melted when it reaches the ground? Some kind of HEAT-Effect
> or as an Anti-Infantiy warhead. Just imagine when a dozen (or so)
> balls/sticks/drops projectiles splatters down on an infantry unit
> hitting the ground and covering the area with superheated metal.
> Possible? Effective?
At the impact speeds we're talking about, it will probably hit the ground
and explode, not splatter. At these velocities, just about any material
will be vaporized by the shock of impact, including tungsten and uranium.
Luke
Foxtaur
> 'Large mechanized assaults' are currently out of military fashion, what
> with 70-pound tungsten crowbars able to be tossed from orbit by anybody
> willing to have the launching craft targetted. Also, the PC's company of
> drop troopers isn't necessarily going to be the /only/ troops sent to
> any given target zone - but they're the ones who are going to be sent
> (and arrive) first, and get to blow up any artillery that would knock
> out ground-based troops' carrier-craft. Plus, just because the drop
> troopers have suits designed to survive doesn't mean every E4 does -
> such suits are expensive, meaning the drop troopers get sent to some of
> the ugliest drop zones.
Er, I meant to write '...just because the drop troopers have suits
designed to survive CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear)
warfare sites doesn't mean...'
Foxtaur
> Foxtaur wrote:
>> My latest ideas for arming these fellows is to split them into 4-man
>> "Fire Teams", carrying four vibro-blades, three Assault Chainguns, an
>> EM Mortar or automatic EM Grenade Launcher, various grenades, and
>> ammunition. I also want at least a one-shot anti-vehicle weapon,
> Why? If you have a grenade launcher, you may have RPG-like rounds
> with shaped-charge warheads.
I would love to outfit my troopers with such a toy - but don't have any
GURPS stats for it.
>> Should I try to come up with one or two drop-attack-aircraft, for
>> when a nuke's too big but fragmentation-mortar-shells are too small?
>> What sort of craft would you design?
> There are many other things a big missile can carry apart from a
> nuclear warhead. It depends on the target.
> A single non-moving hardened target, such as an underground complex
> or heavily armored bunker: use some kind of penetration+explosive
> warhead (several types are available).
> Several smaller hardened but non airtight bunkers/buildings: FAE.
> Several hardened airtight targets, either moving or not
> (tanks/bunkers): a bus missile carrying several warheads each with
> its own guidance system, SICM or smart bombs.
> Non-armored troops in the open: ICM, SICM or a giant
> proximity-fused beehive round.
> A SAM battalion: a bus missile carrying a few anti-radiation
> missiles and ICM.
> A carrier group: a bus missile carrying a few SS-N-12...
> A mixture of targets: a bus missile carrying a mixture of warheads!
Again, these all sound like useful toys, but there doesn't seem to be
any data on them in the relevant GURPS books I own (Cyberpunk, Space).
<hint, hopeful grin>
> Hope this helps,
Immensely - I've saved your message to use as a reference. Thank you
kindly. :)
Thank you for your time,
Joseph Michael Bay
>A propos melting: How about a projectile that is suppesed to be
>(partially) melted when it reaches the ground? Some kind of HEAT-Effect
>or as an Anti-Infantiy warhead.
I think orbital bombardment of infants would be considered a war atrocity.
--
o Joe Bay o Cancer Biology o Stanford University o Califr0nia o
Get out of my way, all of you! This is no ASOMA POWAAA!!!
place for loafers. Join me or die. For lucky best wash
Can you do any less? use Mr. Sprakle!
Joseph Michael Bay
>Mirko Armelyan <miarmel...@tin.it> wrote:
>> Foxtaur wrote:
>>> My latest ideas for arming these fellows is to split them into 4-man
>>> "Fire Teams", carrying four vibro-blades, three Assault Chainguns, an
>>> EM Mortar or automatic EM Grenade Launcher, various grenades, and
>>> ammunition. I also want at least a one-shot anti-vehicle weapon,
>> Why? If you have a grenade launcher, you may have RPG-like rounds
>> with shaped-charge warheads.
> I would love to outfit my troopers with such a toy - but don't have any
>GURPS stats for it.
They're like regular grenades with an armor divisor of five, I think.
It's in Ultra-Tech.
Joseph Michael Bay
><snip very interesting ideas>
>> Do you have any other plotworthy ideas?
>Cloning should be advanced by now. What about Brock carries a clone of
>each member of the crew, for braintaping purposes?
Cloning is something that we can pretty much assume will be feasible
within the next decade or two (okay, so it happens now, but not for
people and not reliably). Braintaping, on the other hand, who the
heck knows how long it will take to get to that, if it's even possible?
Timothy Little
>Saying the "crowbar will reach a very high speed" is perhaps
>not the best way to phrase it. The crowbar is already at a
>very, very high speed while it's in orbit: 17,500mph. This is
>probably WAY above it's terminal velocity.
How much above terminal velocity? Ten times? Then it is decelerating
at about 100G, enough to cut its speed in half within 4 seconds.
>However, the time from de-orbit burn to impact is *shorter* than
>the time it takes an aerodynamic object like a Thor shot to
>reach terminal velocity. In other words, the Thor shot won't
>have enough time to slow down to terminal velocity.
I'm not so sure of that. A large crowbar-sized streamlined projectile
(say 2 m long by 5 cm thick, about 40 kg) would be decelerating at
about 100G in the lower atmosphere. At about the steepest feasible
de-orbit angle, it needs to pass through the equivalent of about 60 km
of such air, taking at least 8 seconds to do so. It would slow down
to about 2.5-3 km/s due to the decresing forces as it slows, assuming
it survived the heating.
- Tim
cra...@hotmail.com
Florian Berner <fbe...@gmx.net> wrote:
> A propos melting: How about a projectile that is suppesed to be
> (partially) melted when it reaches the ground? Some kind of HEAT-
Effect
> or as an Anti-Infantiy warhead. Just imagine when a dozen (or so)
> balls/sticks/drops projectiles splatters down on an infantry unit
> hitting the ground and covering the area with superheated metal.
> Possible? Effective?
The HEAT effect is an alternate means of punching a projectile
through armor with a cutting edge moving at several miles per
second.
In other words, a kinetic penetrator like a Thor munition or
APFSDS tank shell is moving at 1 mile per second or faster when
it hits the target because it was launched at that speed. The
HEAT effect allows a slow shell to be fired and, when it
touches the target, thrust forward with a multi-mile per second
dense gas jet.
Combining the two seems redundant (IMO), especially considering
a Thor munition or APFSDS shell turns to liquid/gas when it
hits an object.
>
> > Tungsten would be a comparative pain in the ass to work,
> > though, due to its obscene melting point and stiffness.
> > Fortunately, it's TL8. It might be feasible to cast tungsten
> > with TL8 technology.
> >
> How difficult is it to produce/get? I think Uranium is
> realtivly easy aviable, but I'm not an expert.
Gee, I'd actually have to look around to find that out. I've
been working with qualitative values I've picked up over the
years, not quantitative.
As a rule of thumb, the cost of materials usually isn't a
big deal when it comes to the cost of a product until you
start talking about really exotic materials or materials
with a lot of processing, like composites.
cra...@hotmail.com
t...@freeman.little-possums.net (Timothy Little) wrote:
> cra...@hotmail.com <cra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Saying the "crowbar will reach a very high speed" is perhaps
> >not the best way to phrase it. The crowbar is already at a
> >very, very high speed while it's in orbit: 17,500mph. This is
> >probably WAY above it's terminal velocity.
>
> How much above terminal velocity? Ten times? Then it is decelerating
> at about 100G, enough to cut its speed in half within 4 seconds.
I'm not sure I follow how you got 100G. Very blunt objects
like re-entry capsules only endure 3-10G on re-entry. A Thor
shot would be designed for minimal deceleration, i.e.
maximum aerodynamics. You want the highest possible impact
speed for them.
>
> >However, the time from de-orbit burn to impact is *shorter* than
> >the time it takes an aerodynamic object like a Thor shot to
> >reach terminal velocity. In other words, the Thor shot won't
> >have enough time to slow down to terminal velocity.
>
> I'm not so sure of that. A large crowbar-sized streamlined projectile
> (say 2 m long by 5 cm thick, about 40 kg) would be decelerating at
> about 100G in the lower atmosphere.
Again, why?
> At about the steepest feasible
> de-orbit angle, it needs to pass through the equivalent of about 60 km
> of such air, taking at least 8 seconds to do so. It would slow down
> to about 2.5-3 km/s due to the decresing forces as it slows, assuming
> it survived the heating.
What's the impact speed of a typical meteor? I haven't
heard of one of those hitting at their terminal velocities
yet, and they aren't as dense or aerodynamic as a Thor
munition. Seriously - why do you think the Thor shot would
slow so much?
Surviving the heating is easy. Ablate or depend on temperature
resistant construction, like tungsten.
peste...@river-valley.net
> Do you have any other plotworthy ideas?
Cloning should be advanced by now. What about Brock carries a clone of
each member of the crew, for braintaping purposes? to keep them from
pumping out clones say it takes two years to mature one. This will
essentially give the PC's a free life, and perhaps lead to some good
roleplaying when one of the PCs has to be transferred but something
happened to their clone, so they have to be transferred to someone
elses clone. Can be interesting if the person is another sex, race,
rank, or some combination of those. Another way it can be intersting is
if the two were rivals for some reason, would being in a copy of the
others body increase or decrease a rivalry?
You can make the game interstellar and keep TL8 drives, say spacial
anomolies allow travel between stars. Warp points like the David
Weber/Steve White books could work well. Of course this doesn't mean
you have to have aliens in fact some of the best conflict in those
books was between humans. Those books are 'Death's Ground', 'Crusade',
and 'Insurrection'.
> Any other comments at all? :)
Would you consider making this a play by email game?
David Crowe
: > Suborbital shuttles hops could deliver troops anywhere on Earth in
: > just a little more time, but for a lot less money.
: The dropships themselves seem to be reasonable facsimiles of such
: shuttles - in fact, they're single-stage-to-orbit and -back-to-Earth
: shuttles, as well. So, I assume that your main question is why they
: should be based in a mobile orbiting weapons platform rather than
: somewhere on Earth (ignoring, for the moment, any possible military
: activity in orbit, on the Moon, or further out).
: One possible answer is that 'just a little more time' might be just a
: little too much - for example, if somebody starts cooking up a new
: bioplague and is about to install it in some missile warheads, then time
: is of the essence. (And in good action movie format, seconds could
: easily make the difference. <g>)
Hmmmm. I get the impression this is a semi-realistic one. And going by
real-world standards for developing weapons of mass destruction, word is
going to get out more than a few hours in advance of any such plan. If
they could be developed in such secrecy, why bother with missiles? Stuff
a breifcase full of it and head to the closest infidel international
airport.
I guess I just don't see the need for a 1/2 hour armed response vs a 2
hour one in a "peacetime" geopolitical situation.
: > And it would be more efficient to keep troops on the Earth
: > rather than cooped up in a ship for months at a time, losing muscle
: > mass due to low gravity, to say nothing of the difficulties in
: > training.
: With the TL8 drug "Ursaline", the negative biological effects of
: microgravity are prevented - and I made sure to add the cost of a 2-year
: supply to the Brock. :)
: As for training, the only additional training for troopers stationed in
: freefall would be a minimum of 100 hours to give them "Freefall/TL8
: (P/A)" of DX-1. (More training wouldn't hurt, of course. :) ) And given
: that the troopers' mission destinations are going to include the
: occasional orbiting workshack, they're going to need such training
: regardless.
Right, but I was thinking of general training. Troops just sitting on a
cramped ship lose their edge. You can't do any target practice or
live-fire drills on a ship, for starters. Or climbing, or house entry.
They'd just be playing multiplayer Doom to coordinate tactics...
: Well, let's say a member of the Islamic Axis sponsors a hostile
: takeover of one of the uranium mines in the lunar highlands. Or an
: American-sponsored group tries to steal some of Canada's clean
: freshwater reserves. Or China asks for a little help when American
Heh. I see those firefighter tanker planes swooping down a lake to fill
up and run...
: pioneers in the New West (Siberia) ignore the border. Or yet another
: bioagent is released in the Balkans... Or anything else I can come up
: with (or you can suggest <g>).
Biological warfare would seem to call for a CDC team to respond more
rapidly than the Marines. Once it is loose, revenge won't solve the
problem.
And border tensions don't call for commandos, but long-term agents acting
like US Marshalls.
So I still don't see why a force of orbital infantry would need to be on
constant alert. If things are that tense, then with nuclear escalation
being a common phenomenon, SOMEONE is going to use it before or during the
entrance of the UN force.
--
David "No Nickname" Crowe http://www.primenet.com/~jetman
<Moan> "This episode of 'Buffy' is filled with continuity errors!
But I can't reach my internet newsgroup to *complain*!
Worst punishment ever!"
-Comic store guy in Hell, Simpsons Treehouse of Horror #6.
Foxtaur
>> Do you have any other plotworthy ideas?
> Cloning should be advanced by now. What about Brock carries a clone
> of each member of the crew, for braintaping purposes? to keep them
> from pumping out clones say it takes two years to mature one. This
> will essentially give the PC's a free life, and perhaps lead to
> some good roleplaying when one of the PCs has to be transferred but
> something happened to their clone, so they have to be transferred
> to someone elses clone. Can be interesting if the person is
> another sex, race, rank, or some combination of those. Another way
> it can be intersting is if the two were rivals for some reason,
> would being in a copy of the others body increase or decrease a
> rivalry?
I'd already thought about braintaping, and I don't think that it would
add to the theme/mood I'm trying to create. I see that I jotted down a
note with the idea that braintaping would currently be in the higly
experimental stages - that for 100 times the listed price of a normal
braintape, a very-low resolution braintape could be made... at the
expense of the original brain. Forced-growth tanks, on the other hand,
are only about 10 times the listed cost. (Cuba was one of the earliest
buyers of this technology, but even after having every available piece
of data about the original force-fed into him, Fidel's clone wasn't able
to take his place when he died...)
> You can make the game interstellar and keep TL8 drives, say spacial
> anomolies allow travel between stars. Warp points like the David
> Weber/Steve White books could work well. Of course this doesn't
> mean you have to have aliens in fact some of the best conflict in
> those books was between humans. Those books are 'Death's Ground',
> 'Crusade', and 'Insurrection'.
> Would you consider making this a play by email game?
Ssh, you'll spoil the surprise... <grin>
(If you think you might join such a PBeM, don't read any further.)
Once the setting's been established with the players, I've been
planning on the Brock being sent to Mars when colonies on Phobos and
Deimos were lasered into oblivion by undeclared attackers.
Those attackers happen to be some of the local colonists of the
Rrangoon species, who've placed footholds on many of the gas giants'
moons, and groups of which are now working their way inwards from the
Belt. Their technology ranges from TL5 to TL9, and they've acquired a
clunky, power-intensive jump drive that only works in gravitationally
flat space - say, about as far as our sun's heliopause.
(And after humanity's gotten the chance to interact with them for a
while, I'll introduce a species that makes the Rrangoon look like Star
Trek forehead-aliens... <grin> )
Foxtaur
> Foxtaur <spam.fox...@spam.warren.kill.com> wrote:
> : David Crowe <jet...@primenet.com> wrote:
>>> Suborbital shuttles hops could deliver troops anywhere on Earth in
>>> just a little more time, but for a lot less money.
>> The dropships themselves seem to be reasonable facsimiles of such
>> shuttles - in fact, they're single-stage-to-orbit and -back-to-Earth
>> shuttles, as well. So, I assume that your main question is why they
>> should be based in a mobile orbiting weapons platform rather than
>> somewhere on Earth (ignoring, for the moment, any possible military
>> activity in orbit, on the Moon, or further out).
>> One possible answer is that 'just a little more time' might be just
>> a little too much - for example, if somebody starts cooking up a new
>> bioplague and is about to install it in some missile warheads, then
>> time is of the essence. (And in good action movie format, seconds
>> could easily make the difference. <g>)
> Hmmmm. I get the impression this is a semi-realistic one.
Well, about as realistic as any "hard" science fiction I've been able
to find on the shelves that has a good plotline.
> And going by real-world standards for developing weapons of mass
> destruction, word is going to get out more than a few hours in
> advance of any such plan. If they could be developed in such
> secrecy, why bother with missiles? Stuff a briefcase full of it
> and head to the closest infidel international airport.
Hey, you've just described the opening few months of the European/
Islamic-Axis War. ;)
A TL8 'hellkitchen' suitcase genetics lab costs about $50,000, if I
recall G:BioTech correctly, and, given a sample of any given disease,
can immediately start manufacturing additional doses. It can also be
used to try and tinker with a virus or bacteria, but with a significant
skill penalty - and any failure is a critical failure, usually meaning
the would-be bio-terrorist is infected.
Also, a 10-kiloton nuclear missile costs only $464,000, and a launcher
$3,000...
Of course, with TL8 scanning techniques, international airports have
never been safer. It's everywhere else that has to worry... <evil grin>
> I guess I just don't see the need for a 1/2 hour armed response vs
> a 2 hour one in a "peacetime" geopolitical situation.
Well, it's closer to a 6 hour response vs a 24 hour one.
And the global situation isn't so much "peacetime" as "Europe and the
Axis are worn out by a decade of fighting, and China and the USA are
smiling at each other while sharpening knives behind their backs"...
>>> And it would be more efficient to keep troops on the Earth
>>> rather than cooped up in a ship for months at a time, losing muscle
>>> mass due to low gravity, to say nothing of the difficulties in
>>> training.
>> As for training, the only additional training for troopers stationed
in
>> freefall would be a minimum of 100 hours to give them "Freefall/TL8
>> (P/A)" of DX-1. (More training wouldn't hurt, of course. :) ) And given
>> that the troopers' mission destinations are going to include the
>> occasional orbiting workshack, they're going to need such training
>> regardless.
> Right, but I was thinking of general training. Troops just sitting
> on a cramped ship lose their edge. You can't do any target
> practice or live-fire drills on a ship, for starters. Or climbing,
> or house entry. They'd just be playing multiplayer Doom to
> coordinate tactics...
Ah, here's another legitimate discrepency - which could probably be
solved by my coming up with how often a given platoon would be rotated
from the Brock back to Earth (or the Moon, or whatever).
>> Well, let's say a member of the Islamic Axis sponsors a hostile
>> takeover of one of the uranium mines in the lunar highlands. Or an
>> American-sponsored group tries to steal some of Canada's clean
>> freshwater reserves. Or China asks for a little help when American
> Heh. I see those firefighter tanker planes swooping down a lake to
> fill up and run...
Hey, when the Amazon is turning into a desert, Eastern Europe's
waterways are filled with toxic sludge, and the American public is
always ready to buy 'healthy' products, then fresh, clean water is quite
the valuable resource...
>> pioneers in the New West (Siberia) ignore the border. Or yet another
>> bioagent is released in the Balkans... Or anything else I can come up
>> with (or you can suggest <g>).
> Biological warfare would seem to call for a CDC team to respond
> more rapidly than the Marines. Once it is loose, revenge won't
> solve the problem.
And revenge wouldn't necessarily be the assigned mission of the drop
troopers. The Brock has a full-scale genetics laboratory, and the
troopers have NRBC-rated armoured suits, which are both relatively
expensive and not always available to conventional troops. And if a
bio-agent is released somewhere besides where it's being cooked up (a
fairly good idea for non-kamikaze bio-terrorists), then the higher-ups
would want the hellkitchen found and destroyed before more civvies
become infected.
(One 'positive' thing about this future is that overpopulation has
become much less of a problem in many places...)
> And border tensions don't call for commandos, but long-term agents
> acting like US Marshalls.
True - and the Brock's company of troopers isn't meant to patrol
particular borders for long periods of time any more than an Ohio-class
nuclear submarine is used as a goodwill-ambassador ship. It's when
'tensions' turn into 'hordes of Mongols riding across the border' (hm...
that's actually an interesting idea, since the USA now owns Siberia...)
that the drop troopers are sent in.
> So I still don't see why a force of orbital infantry would need to
> be on constant alert. If things are that tense, then with nuclear
> escalation being a common phenomenon, SOMEONE is going to use it
> before or during the entrance of the UN force.
The HMSS Sir Isaac Brock isn't a UN ship - it's Canadian, currently on
loan to NATO (which now only consists of most of North, Central, and
South America), with lots of Americans still aboard.
Still, you've brought up another valid point, that I'm going to have to
think a bit more about before responding to.
A ten-year war (with tactical nukes from 0.25 kt up used) in Europe,
north Africa, the Middle East and central and southern Asia has mostly
petered out... America's returned to its traditional isolationism,
turning the rest of the Americas into its own little backyard... Russia
sold its UN powers to Canada, and Siberia to the USA, before joining
Europe (not long before the War started - there's good reason for
Russians to be depressive...)... A 'community-ist' idea has started to
spread in Africa from Angola, partially in counter to the swordpoint
conversions from the north... India and eastern Europe are just a mess,
having usually been the front lines... Japan and Australia are watching
China very nervously, who absorbed most of southeastern Asia while
helping draw Islamic-Axis forces away from Europe...
woef...@my-deja.com
Warhead: small 80mm ICM or FASCAM -- 1 lb., $100, 48-yard burst radius
Motor: 1 lb., 100 yards/second, $20
WPS: 2 (3)
VPS: .04 (.06)
CPS: $150
End: 6 seconds
Max range: 3000 yards (1.7 miles); indirect fire only
Malf: Crit.
SS: 11
Launcher: disposable w/pistol grip -- 1 lb., $30
Tripod: 3 lbs., $30
Timer (as per. self destruct mechanism, treating warhead as bomb): .5
lbs., $50
ARES-12A (automatic rifle, electrically fed, saboted cartridge, .12
caliber, A model) -- TL8
3mm (.12 caliber), extremely long barrel (12"), heavy automatic,
rifled, electrically fed, folding stock (when retracted -5 Acc, -2 SS,
+1 ST, +2 Holdout )
Malf: Ver.
Damage: 4d6-2 KK – avg. 11 hit
5d6-1 (2) APS – avg. 7 hit, 28 pen. (46% penetration vs. medium body
armor, 22% vs. heavy body armor)
1/2d range: 520 yards KK, 780 APS
Max range: 3300 yards KK, 4900 yards APS
Acc: 9 shoulder-fired, 10 with bipod
Weight: 3.8 lbs. w/shoulder stock & bipod
SS: 12
ROF: 20/10/3
WPS: .004 KK, .0023 APS
VPS: .000027 (cassette of 480 rounds is about 22 cubic inches --
roughly the size of a beer can)
CPS: $.008 KK, $.04 APS
Power: .0064/second
Cost: $670
Rcl: -1 shoulder-fired, -1 with bipod
ST: 8 shoulder-fired, 8 with bipod
-- A 400-round cassette of standard military-issue APS ammunition
weighs .92 lbs., costs $16, and lasts for 40 seconds of continuous fire
(20 on the higher setting).
A tiny rechargeable power cell is included in each cassette, good for
500 rounds (.2 kW charge, .00055 lbs., $.055). Although its cost and
weight is negligible, it is more than adequate to power the weapon’s
electric feed long enough to discharge all its ammunition.
Once consumed, the cassette may be recovered and sent back to the
factory. The brass may be recycled and the battery recharged, thus
cutting down on the costs of production.
A 400-round cassette of KK ammo weighs 1.6 lbs. and costs $3.20.
ACCESSORIES:
-- Silencer: 2 lbs., $400
-- Laser designator/rangefinder, 1 mile range (1760 yards): 1.2
lbs., .024cf, $300
ADDITIONAL MISC. AUTHOR'S NOTES:
-- Used on the lower of two autofire settings the ARES-12A is -- as it
was designed to be -- a highly economical weapon, costing precisely a
third less per. unit to supply with ammunition than the standard 5.5mm
caseless assault rifle.
-- The higher setting allows the rifle to deliver fire at the lethal
rate of 1200 rpm. This is ordinarily done only when delivering
suppressive fire, braced in the prone position and with the bipod
deployed. A warning label on the side of the receiver cautions the user
of this. It may also be done at very close quarters, where sheer volume
of fire is more important than any lack of accuracy.
-- Each ammunition cassette resembles a plastic soda can -- red for
standard-issue APS, black for KK. It is inserted in the bottom of the
reciever like an ordinary magazine, and automatically drops out when it
is expended.
-- The trigger and electric feeding mechanism of the ARES-12A are
entirely mechanical in nature, and free of any chipware. This makes it
relatively immune to the ravages of EMP (a persistent problem of
early 'shoot-by-wire' production models).
RG-45 recoilless rifle grenade launcher
45mm, extremely short barrel, extra-low pressure, liquid propellant,
recoilless, smoothbore, muzzleloading, cheap
All statistics assume the RG-45 to be mounted on an ARES-12 or other
assault weapon.
Malf: Ver.
Damage: 17d6 [4] HE or HEPF -- avg. 51 hit, 12 frag.
6dx13 (10) RAM HEAT -- avg. 39 hit, 390 pen.
15-yard burst radius WP
1/2d range: 47/140 yards, 70/210 yards RAM HEAT
Max range: 650/1900 yards direct, 1000/4800 yards indirect
Acc: 4 (5 with bipod, -2 low velocity, +1 hypervelocity)
Weight: 3 lbs.
SS: 12
ROF: 1/4
WPS: 1 lb. base, 1.5 recoilless, .75 liquid propellant/RAM HEAT, .5 all
other ammo types
VPS: .005 RAM HEAT, .0033 all other ammo types
CPS: $6 HE, $12 WP, $13 RAM HEAT, $15 HEPF
Cost: $480
Rcl: 0
ST: 7 shoulder-fired or with bipod
The RG-45 was designed as a companion piece to the ARES-12 assault
rifle. It is based on the premise that the final product must be light
and inexpensive enough to become standard issue. Yet it must be
powerful enough to cripple a tank or kill a man in heavy armor. The RG-
45 nicely balances these two considerations.
In form it is remarkably simple: a short rod, small blast plate, and
pistol grip with trigger. It does not increase the length of the ARES-
12, and does not obstruct the barrel when loaded. To fire it one takes
a grenade, pushes it down on the rod, and gives a half-twist to arm it.
It is then capable of lofting a half-pound explosive charge at targets
2.7 miles distant, or of engaging armored vehicles two hundred yards
away with the special rocket-assisted HEAT round.
In low velocity mode, the RG-45 is also capable of silent fire. This is
especially lethal when the weapon is employed as a light mortar. Unless
the enemy happens to be carrying a counterbattery radar set with him,
he will not know where the fire is coming from. If on foot, he may well
flee into an ambush. If defending a stationary target, how will he know
where to dispatch his patrols? To the ordinary infantryman, whose
fondest wish is to shoot his enemy without being shot back at, this is
a priceless advantage.
Granted, a cheaply-built smoothbore weapon is not as accurate as a
rifled one. But the power of the RG-45's bursting rounds will
compensate for any fundamental lack of accuracy when used against enemy
troops. They are far more powerful than those used by ordinary grenade
launchers, and cover a wider area. As for tanks -- well, a tank is a
very large target. There is no recoil to throw off one's aim. And the
launcher will be attached to an ARES-12 assault rifle, which has a
bipod. All of this assists greatly in aiming.
DOGR (disposable optically-guided rocket) -- TL8
Warhead: small 173mm HESH -- 10 lbs., $500, 6dx81 -- avg. 1400 hit, 140
pen.
Guidance: cheap OH w/popup -- 1 lb., $1250, skill 14
Motor: 5 lbs., 200 yards/second (409 mph), $500
WPS: 16 (24)
VPS: .32 (.48) -- 830 square inches; about 7" around and 24" long CPS:
$2300
End: 4.7 seconds
Range: 940 yards (.53 miles)
Launcher: disposable w/pistol grip -- 8 lbs., $65, SS 12
P-15 armor-defeating submachine gun
15.5mm (.63 caliber), very short barrel (7”), extra-low pressure,
rifled, electrically fed, cheap
Malf: Crit.
Damage: 2d6-1 KK – avg. 5 hit, 10 damage vs. flesh targets
3d6 (10) HEAT – avg. 9 hit, 90 pen.
1-yard burst radius WP
1/2d range: 100 yards
Max range: 1300 yards direct
Acc: 4
Weight: 4.3 lbs. w/shoulder stock
SS: 12
ROF: 6/3
WPS: .056 KK, .037 HEAT and WP
VPS: .00037
CPS: $.11 KK, $.34 HEAT, $.45 WP
Power: .034/second (rechargeable power cell in pistol grip good for
15,000 rounds or 500 magazines: 850 kW, .093 lbs., $.93)
Cost: $350
Rcl: -1
ST: 9
-- 30-round detachable magazine loaded with standard-issue HEAT rounds
weighs 1.6 lbs., costs $10.20, and lasts for 5 seconds of continuous
fire. Loaded weight is 5.9 lbs.
The action of the P-15 is fed by an electric motor and loaded via an
underbarrel 30-round rotary magazine. A digital counter on the back of
the breech allows the operator to keep track of his precious ammunition
supply, and alerts him when the battery runs low. Other than these
small features and the bore size -- it is unremarkable in appearance,
being strictly a no-frills weapon.
It fires a .63 caliber shaped charge from an old-fashioned brass
cartridge, allowing it to penetrate any body armor in existence. In
combination with thermographic sensors, one may kill an enemy inside a
vehicle or on the other side of a wall. One can also use the P-15 to
strip the reactive armor from enemy tanks. Hunter-killer teams armed
with P-15's and anti-tank rockets are especially deadly in urban
combat.
While HEAT ammunition is standard, it is not the only choice. Solid
ammunition is available for situations where overpenetration is a
concern. And loaded with phosphorus rounds, the P-15 is transformed
into a miniature flamethrower. Special operations troops are fond of
a 'mixed fruit' load of WP and HEAT rounds; the combined armor-piercing
and incendiary effects are lethal against a wide spectrum of
battlefield targets.
True, thanks to manufacturing shortcuts, it is not faultlessly reliable
as it might be. It is no more accurate than most handguns, and the
ammunition is somewhat expensive. But it is cheap and lightweight and
allows any normal person to kill a man encased in powered armor costing
many tens of thousands of dollars. For the urban guerilla, the commando
entering a heavily-guarded building or vessel, or anywhere at close
quarters where one may encounter armored troops, this is close to the
ideal weapon. For inflicting damage on soft targets like trucks or
supply depots, it is better still.
There is also a service pistol variant of this unusual weapon: the SP-
15. It has a ROF of 3, weighs 1.8 lbs, and accepts an 8-round magazine
in the pistol grip. To increase its utility, it can be mounted to the
accessory rail on the ARES-12. While a hard kicker (Recoil –2, STR 10),
it costs only $250, making it an inexpensive addition to any soldier's
kit and giving him a close-quarters capability he otherwise might lack.
Vehicle Version
TSG-115 "Room Broom", A Gauss "Shotgun" Needler TL8, 1.15mm, Ex.Long
Barrel(10"), Low Power, 4b Electric Gatling Malf: Ver. (Crit when
firing 3~)
KE=2.76 => Dam.=2d imp. Needles
1/2D=640 => 400 w/Needles
Max=3675 => 2400 w/Needles
Acc: +12
Weight=2.3805lbs
RoF=Select 60/40/20/4x3~/3~ (4x3~ cycles all 4b once per trigger pull)
WPS 3.8E-5, VPS 2.5E-7, CPS(Needle) 6.08E-4
Pow=0.057kWsPS
Cost=$5900
And a couple of stats I find useful for making Hand Held Versions:
TL8PowCell: 3.135E-6lbPS, 3.135E-8cfPS, $3.135E-4PS
Combined: cWPS=4.1135E-6, cVPS=2.8135E-7, cCPS=$9.215E-4
Hand Held Version has a pistol grip, folding shoulder stock and
integral laser sight.
Hand Held Version
TSG-115 Gauss "Shotgun"
Dam=2d imp
Malf=Ver. (Crit at 3~)
SS=12(10 Folded)
Acc=+12(+9 Folded)
1/2D=400
Max=2400
Ewt=2.85lbs, Lwt=4lbs
RoF=60/40/20/4x3~/3~
Shots=24000
ST=8(9 Folded)
Rcl= -1
Cost=$6000
-the 24000 Round Ammo Cassette has a volume of 12ci, weighs 1.15 lbs,
and costs $25. It lasts for 10 mins of accurate fire (2 rnds full
RoF+1 round break) or over 6.5 mins continuous fire at the full RoF.
-can do 10 average damage per needle to a person wearing open weave
armour (600 per round!), can also be used to remove on average 13
points of ablative armour per second or over 5300 per cassette.
Designed to fill a similar role to a shotgun [capable of having
innacurate fire still hit with the potential for hitting multiple times
and/or multiple targets] while able to defeat the new generation of
open weave armour that has become popular with criminals and several
armies, the TSG-115 is expected to become popular with special forces
and police deparments [and criminal, of course] for use in this
capacity. The moderately high initial investment is recovered quickly
when you consider the cost of ammuniton, and the conveince of
sustained, high rates of fire and compact resupply. Anecdotal evidence
of it's use to defeat one of a certain countries new heavily armoured
small tanks may mean a possible anti-armour role for the 115.
Five settings are available to determine to rate of fire. The
automatic settings are perfect to clear rooms and attack some of the
new nearly full coverage armour [at 60 per second for as long as 400s
something is bound slip through or hit an uncovered spot eventually].
The faster selective fire setting mimics the shotgun most closely.
Each trigger pull cycles the barrels one time giving you four shots on
target [allowing one to hit even on a miss by 1] increasing your chance
for a kill. The single shot setting allows for a lower lethality is
desired. Disclaimer: This setting is not recommened for primary usage,
some evidence indicates the TSG-115 is more prone to misfiring on this
setting. It has not been reproducible by our testers, but they are
looking into it. [I thought it was a neat quirk, probably something to
do with the drive's gearing.]
peste...@river-valley.net
Have you ever read any of S. Andrew Swann's books?
How where the various space programs affected, I know Terra still has a
space presence but how much has it changed since the war?
What happened to the colonies during the war, could they survive on
their own?
cra...@hotmail.com
peste...@river-valley.net wrote:
> <snip description of familiar sounding war>
>
> Have you ever read any of S. Andrew Swann's books?
Yeah. Just about wore them out.
> How where the various space programs affected, I know Terra
> still has a space presence but how much has it changed
> since the war?
Interesting question. Has the Islamic-EU war affected their
space programs? Have China and the US taken the opportunity
to capitalize on the other superpowers being dragged away
by war to secure the High Frontier for themselves?
>
> What happened to the colonies during the war, could they survive on
> their own?
Or would they be snapped up by other powers, perhaps with
"generous offers of support."
--
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
"I told [Clinton] I'd be happy to take the first year and then he
could have the second year while they're working this out. But
this sucks..." --Bob Dole
Timothy Little
>I'm not sure I follow how you got 100G. Very blunt objects
>like re-entry capsules only endure 3-10G on re-entry.
They do so for long distances very high in the atmosphere where the
density is much, much lower. Trust me, if they somehow made it into
the lower atmosphere at orbital speeds they would undergo far more
than 100G deceleration in the few milliseconds before the capsule
exploded into tiny fragments.
> A Thor shot would be designed for minimal deceleration, i.e.
>maximum aerodynamics. You want the highest possible impact speed for
>them.
That's right. I assumed near-optimal aerodynamics. Unfortunately 2
metres just isn't long enough to get the cross-sectional density you
need. You can do the calculation yourself if you like. I assumed a
tungsten penetrator of a curved, roughly conical shape. I also
assumed that it had perfect aerodynamic stability with no need for
control surfaces.
>What's the impact speed of a typical meteor? I haven't
>heard of one of those hitting at their terminal velocities
>yet, and they aren't as dense or aerodynamic as a Thor
>munition.
Meteors typically hit at a few tens of kilometres per second.
Essentially all of them disintegrate before reaching the surface. Of
the ones that do hit, almost all of them lose most of their mass and
nearly all of their velocity. If you want to see what happens when
meteorites hit without losing their velocity or mass, look at the
Moon's surface.
> Seriously - why do you think the Thor shot would slow so much?
A crowbar-sized projectlie isn't long enough to have sufficient
cross-sectional density to overcome any reasonable drag. Make it
about 5-10 metres long and it might work, though I'm not sure about
how to design suitable control surfaces for stabilization and terminal
guidance.
>Surviving the heating is easy. Ablate or depend on temperature
>resistant construction, like tungsten.
Ablation would be a good idea, since that way you get rid of really
hot material before it conducts heat into the rest of the projectile.
It would probably be a bad idea to use a metal, since they tend to
conduct heat very well. The ideal surface material would be something
with a very high melting point, high latent heat, and an excellent
insulator. You also want the projectile to be fairly thick, which
needs to be balanced against the aerodynamic need for a long thin
shape of projectile.
At 8 km/s, Mach heating gives a temperature of about 10 times the
melting point of tungsten, if I've remembered the calculations
correctly. Most of the heat will be carried off by the air, but it
will still transmit a lot of heat to the projectile. As far as I
know, only ablation can get rid of heat fast enough at these speeds.
- Tim
cra...@hotmail.com
t...@freeman.little-possums.net (Timothy Little) wrote:
> cra...@hotmail.com <cra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >I'm not sure I follow how you got 100G. Very blunt objects
> >like re-entry capsules only endure 3-10G on re-entry.
>
> They do so for long distances very high in the atmosphere where the
> density is much, much lower. Trust me, if they somehow made it into
> the lower atmosphere at orbital speeds they would undergo far more
> than 100G deceleration in the few milliseconds before the capsule
> exploded into tiny fragments.
>
> > A Thor shot would be designed for minimal deceleration, i.e.
> >maximum aerodynamics. You want the highest possible impact speed for
> >them.
>
> That's right. I assumed near-optimal aerodynamics. Unfortunately 2
> metres just isn't long enough to get the cross-sectional density you
> need. You can do the calculation yourself if you like. I assumed a
> tungsten penetrator of a curved, roughly conical shape. I also
> assumed that it had perfect aerodynamic stability with no need for
> control surfaces.
I can't do the calculations myself - aerodynamics ain't my
thing, so please feel free to share.
However, I know the optimum ballistic shape of a penetrator
munition is not a "curved, roughly conical shape" - it's a long,
thin rod 15-20 times as long as it is wide with a sharp tip.
That might not be the ideal aerodynamic shape at any velocity
(especially hypersonic ones), but I'd like to see the
calculations that show decelerations around 100G.
> >What's the impact speed of a typical meteor? I haven't
> >heard of one of those hitting at their terminal velocities
> >yet, and they aren't as dense or aerodynamic as a Thor
> >munition.
>
> Meteors typically hit at a few tens of kilometres per second.
> Essentially all of them disintegrate before reaching the surface. Of
> the ones that do hit, almost all of them lose most of their mass and
> nearly all of their velocity.
Yes, disintegration and mass loss are common problems. But
that doesn't always happen, does it?
> If you want to see what happens when
> meteorites hit without losing their velocity or mass, look at the
> Moon's surface.
I was thinking of Arizona.
> > Seriously - why do you think the Thor shot would slow so much?
>
> A crowbar-sized projectlie isn't long enough to have sufficient
> cross-sectional density to overcome any reasonable drag.
I expect it to slow, of course, I just think a crowbar-shaped
projectile could retain a majority (over 50%) of its velocity
between de-orbit burn and impact.
> Make it
> about 5-10 metres long and it might work, though I'm not
> sure about how to design suitable control surfaces for
> stabilization and terminal guidance.
How about rockets for control? They'd stay entirely within
the projectile and not add additional drag/heating issues.
Reaction wheels might be even better, given a large enough
projectile to fit them.
> At 8 km/s, Mach heating gives a temperature of about 10 times the
> melting point of tungsten, if I've remembered the calculations
> correctly. Most of the heat will be carried off by the air, but it
> will still transmit a lot of heat to the projectile. As far as I
> know, only ablation can get rid of heat fast enough at these speeds.
Ablation it is. :)
No, wait, it's TL8: Unobtainium.
Timothy Little
>However, I know the optimum ballistic shape of a penetrator munition
>is not a "curved, roughly conical shape" - it's a long, thin rod
>15-20 times as long as it is wide with a sharp tip.
ASCII art would be an absolutely terrible medium to draw a picture, so
I won't even try. Think of the shape of the nosecone of supersonic
aircraft. A sharp tip which widens in a gently curved manner.
>That might not be the ideal aerodynamic shape at any velocity
>(especially hypersonic ones), but I'd like to see the
>calculations that show decelerations around 100G.
OK. Sea level atmosphere has a density of around 1.3 kg/m^3. This
decreases with increasing height, but drag depends linearly upon
density and so we can treat the atmosphere as being roughly a 10 km
blanket of air at sea-level density.
Consider a penetrator 2 metres in length, with a diameter of 10 cm (20
times longer than it is wide). It would have a mass of about 80 kg if
made of tungsten. Now, the drag force will be proportional to the air
density, the square of the velocity, the cross-sectional area, and a
factor that depends upon the shape.
a = Cd rho A v^2 / m.
A reasonable value for a streamlined penetrator of this shape would be
Cd = 0.1. The cross-sectional area would be 0.008 m^2. The other
figures have already been mentioned, rho = 1.3 kg/m^3, v = 8000 m/s, m
= 80 kg.
Plugging these figures in, we get a = 832 m/s^2, which is about 80 G.
My original 100+G calculation was for a crowbar of more typical length
of about 1 metre. As you can see, increasing the length decreases the
acceleration. So better results are obtained by making the projectile
longer and thinner. However, too thin and the stress will buckle it,
as well as increasing the longitudinal surface area (and hence drag)
which I have ignored in the above calculation.
>Yes, disintegration and mass loss are common problems. But
>that doesn't always happen, does it?
It always happens but to differing extents. The larger the meteor the
less velocity it loses and the less (relative) mass it loses.
>I was thinking of Arizona.
Yes, caused by an object that lost far more energy and mass while
travelling through the atmosphere than a crowbar can afford. A
telegraph pole made of tungsten should make it though, if stabilised
properly.
>I expect it to slow, of course, I just think a crowbar-shaped
>projectile could retain a majority (over 50%) of its velocity
>between de-orbit burn and impact.
Sure -- vaguely crowbar-shaped is OK (i.e. long thin rod), just not
crowbar-sized.
>How about rockets for control? They'd stay entirely within
>the projectile and not add additional drag/heating issues.
They add a lot of complexity and you probably lose quite a bit of
effective weight. How precise can rockets be? Enough to adjust
orientation to within a few tengths of a degree?
The big problem with aerodynamic control surfaces would be that they
would be subject to the stream of extremely hot air and ablated
material. (Longer and thinner projectiles make this worse, and also
require more precise stabilization)
>Reaction wheels might be even better, given a large enough projectile
>to fit them.
If they can react fast enough and reliably enough, yes.
- Tim
Foxtaur
> Foxtaur wrote:
> Have you ever read any of S. Andrew Swann's books?
Indeed I have - I even had a conversation with the authour by email
before the fourth 'Moreau' book came out. Also, I use the 'Cynics Book
of Wisdom' for quotes to put in my .sig in my email. :)
> How where the various space programs affected, I know Terra still
> has a space presence but how much has it changed since the war?
The war is partly what prompted the development of the spatial habitats
in the first place. For example, even though the USA was mostly on the
same side as the Islamic Axis, the Axis funneled nearly all of its
hydrocarbon production into the war effort, prompting the Yankees to
finally initiate the solar-power satellite construction program first
envisioned in the 1970s. Also, the surge of tac-nukes led to a new wave
of survivalists (wealthy ones, at least) trying to establish self-
sufficient colonies. (G:Space happens to have 'Total Life Support'
systems, including hydroponics, that apparently function for as long as
they're not overloaded or attacked, have sufficient power, and are
tended by one full-time life-support technician per 100 people.)
China... well, knowledge of China isn't my strong point, but they're
the ones with operations on Phobos and Deimos, among other places.
Hm... perhaps the American space program is primarily orbital habitats,
while China is mainly working on establishing colonies on large bodies?
> What happened to the colonies during the war, could they survive on
> their own?
Theoretically, humanity might survive if the Earth was destroyed, or
otherwise made uninhabitable - as long as they're able to refine uranium
for the power plants and nuke-pulse drives, maintain the solar panels
against micrometeorite damage, extract enough CHON from any available
sources, and otherwise keep the industrial machine moving.
Thank you for your time,
--
Foxtaur
The Rrangoon species is available at http://www.phantomcross.org/rrangoon/
"Alliances are based on the premise that the parties involved benefit
more from screwing the rest of the world than from screwing each
other." -- The Cynic's Book of Wisdom, by R.W.
Foxtaur
> peste...@river-valley.net wrote:
>> Foxtaur wrote:
>> How where the various space programs affected, I know Terra
>> still has a space presence but how much has it changed
>> since the war?
> Interesting question. Has the Islamic-EU war affected their
> space programs? Have China and the US taken the opportunity
> to capitalize on the other superpowers being dragged away
> by war to secure the High Frontier for themselves?
Say, are you sure you're not reading my notes? :)
>> What happened to the colonies during the war, could they survive on
>> their own?
> Or would they be snapped up by other powers, perhaps with
> "generous offers of support."
Depending on who originally sponsored the habitat - a country,
corporation, other organization, or individual - and whether it was
able to supply itself with power, fuel, and maintainance (either by
generating revenue on its own, or still being funded by its founders),
and the personalities of the inhabitants, a given colony might have
barely noticed the flashes of earthly nukes, been traded around like a
lame mule, declared itself an independent 'micro-nation' (such as
Seahaven, near the UK).
A question - if all the dikes, dams, and so forth were destroyed, how
much of the Netherlands, Denmark, and the rest of the Low Countries
would become submerged?
By the way, I've worked out a 20k png/gif world map that shows the main
power blocs and no-man's-lands. I'm not going to post it to the
newsgroup, but I'll email it to anybody who asks (either publicly or via
private email - just remove the .spam.'s from the 'from' header in this
message).
Thank you for your time,
--
Foxtaur
The Rrangoon species is available at http://www.phantomcross.org/rrangoon/
"Might might not make right, but it makes a damn good argument for its
position." -- The Cynic's Book of Wisdom, by R.W.
Foxtaur
railgun-launced Thor system I'm planning on using.
The ammunition is primarily made of tungsten or depleted uranium, but a
certain amount of iron, nickel, or cobolt (or a self-generated moving
electric field) is necessary for the railgun's magnets to pull it along.
It has a density of 64 pounds per cubic foot.
The launchers use three sizes of 'crowbars'. The smallest weighs 71 1/9
pounds each, and has a volume of 1 1/9 cubic feet (1,920 cubic inches).
The medium weighs 711 1/9 lbs, and has a volume of 11 1/9 cubic feet
(19,200 cubic inches). The largest weighs 3.2 tons (6,400 lbs), and has a
volume of 100 cubic feet.
Feel free to use these numbers or not, as you see fit - either way, I'll
continue to read your debate with interest.
Thank you for your time,
--
Foxtaur
The Rrangoon species is available at http://www.phantomcross.org/rrangoon/
"True enemies are as rare as true friends." -- The Cynic's Book of Wisdom,
by R.W.
bake...@my-deja.com
> A slight strangeness creeps in when looking at how much surface area
on > a ship railguns require. A light railgun needs 200 square feet -
but > with a volume of 500 cubic feet, that seems to imply that it's
only 2.5 > feet thick. Similarly, a medium railgun needs 500 square
feet, implying > that it's 10 feet thick, and a heavy railgun 1,500
square feet, implying > a depth of 33 feet, 4 inches.
The surface area requirements allow for the fact that you can't cover
the entire surface of a ship with gun ports and still maintain
structural integrity. The ACTUAL area is about one-tenth of that.
bake...@my-deja.com
> success. Any peacekeeping that can be done with 160 drop troops is
a
> minor affair.
>
Often that's because it takes the UN months or years to move in, and by
that time the situation is out of control... If troops can land, go
back into orbit, and land again elsewhere, and are well enough equipped
and trained that they are not vulnerable to major losses, then they
might be able to exert an influence well beyond their numbers,
especially if backed up by orbital fire support.
cra...@hotmail.com
2-3m long projectiles should be fine; I was thinking of the
mass of the projectile. A 3m projectile with a 15:1 length
to diameter ratio made of tungsten is 1820kg. If those projectiles
have to be launched from Earth, the current US shuttle could
only get about 15 into orbit.
> However, too thin and the stress will buckle it, as well as
> increasing the longitudinal surface area (and hence drag)
> which I have ignored in the above calculation.
A 3m long projectile with a 15:1 L:D ratio would be a 20cm
thick bar. 80G would be (if my conversions are correct)
321,000lbs of loading, with about 4400psi across the nose.
That's not bad, but I recall buckling can occur well before
the yield strength of a material...still, 4400psi on
the stiffest metal around (tungsten) doesn't seem to
threaten buckling.
> >I expect it to slow, of course, I just think a crowbar-shaped
> >projectile could retain a majority (over 50%) of its velocity
> >between de-orbit burn and impact.
>
> Sure -- vaguely crowbar-shaped is OK (i.e. long thin rod), just not
> crowbar-sized.
Alternately, it occurred to me the de-orbit booster could
ACCELERATE the projectile. Add on a few kilometers per second
to offset atmospheric drag and hit with the original orbital
velocity.
>
> >How about rockets for control? They'd stay entirely within
> >the projectile and not add additional drag/heating issues.
>
> They add a lot of complexity and you probably lose quite a bit of
> effective weight.
If you start with good aim (hitting within 100m of the target
sounds reasonable for TL8), you won't need a lot of adjusting.
The rockets can be small.
> How precise can rockets be? Enough to adjust
> orientation to within a few tengths of a degree?
Probably. "It's in the future," after all. :)
If the rockets are small, they won't be able to offer
much more than a few tenths of a degree of correction.
Or you can wait to use the rockets until you're closer
to the target and need to make grosser corrections against
stronger aerodynamic forces.
>
> The big problem with aerodynamic control surfaces would be that they
> would be subject to the stream of extremely hot air and ablated
> material. (Longer and thinner projectiles make this worse, and also
> require more precise stabilization)
How about some flush drag plates that only push out into
the slip stream now and then?
cra...@hotmail.com
Foxtaur <spam.fox...@spam.warren.kill.com> wrote:
> Not to interrupt, but I just thought I'd offer you some numbers from
the
> railgun-launced Thor system I'm planning on using.
>
> The ammunition is primarily made of tungsten or depleted uranium,
but a
> certain amount of iron, nickel, or cobolt (or a self-generated moving
> electric field) is necessary for the railgun's magnets to pull it
along.
> It has a density of 64 pounds per cubic foot.
?? That's barely more than water, which is 1/19th as dense
as tungsten. Is there a tungsten core in there and a lot of
hollow space?
cra...@hotmail.com
Foxtaur <spam.fox...@spam.warren.kill.com> wrote:
> Hm... perhaps the American space program is primarily orbital
> habitats, while China is mainly working on establishing colonies
> on large bodies?
[snip]
> Theoretically, humanity might survive if the Earth was destroyed,
> or otherwise made uninhabitable - as long as they're able to
> refine uranium for the power plants and nuke-pulse drives,
You can usually recycle radioactives for quite a while through
breeder reactors. Even light radioactive "waste" elements
generate useful heat for power generation.
Don't forget solar-thermal drives. They just need ammonia,
hydrogen, or water for reaction mass, a boiler, and a mirror.
Much simpler than nuclear-pulse drives, especially for
civilian survivors. Reasonably advanced (TL8) solar-thermal
rockets are still simple, but get fuel efficiencies approaching
TL8 nuclear rockets. If your colony has a lot of water (it's
on or near a comet), this is a great system.
And don't forget solar sails, either.
> maintain the solar panels
> against micrometeorite damage, extract enough CHON from
> any available sources, and otherwise keep the industrial
> machine moving.
Put some of the US colonies near or on nickel-iron asteroids,
and others near comets. Have the US view China as foolish for
tying itself to larger bodies and the deep gravity wells -
the future of humanity is in deep space, baby! Abundant
sunlight for power (electrical or thermal), endless materials
(silicon for solar panels, more solar panels!, water and CHON
from comets for lifesupport and plastics, metals and ceramics
from asteroids), etc. All the dreams of NASA in the 70s...
All you need is enough warm bodies to keep the industrial
machine moving and, better yet, growing. The number I've
heard is about 1 million people for a technological civilization.
Of course, you don't have to start with that many if your
technology will last long enough for the population to grow
that big.
Foxtaur
> Mike Miller wrote:
>> peste...@river-valley.net wrote:
>>> Foxtaur wrote:
> By the way, I've worked out a 20k png/gif world map that shows the main
> power blocs and no-man's-lands. I'm not going to post it to the
> newsgroup, but I'll email it to anybody who asks (either publicly or via
> private email - just remove the .spam.'s from the 'from' header in this
> message).
Here's the text I've written so far to go with the image. Do you have any
comments about the ideas I've come up with?
These first three areas are loosely allied:
Red is China, who rolled over much of southeast Asia while working to
"paralyze the Islamic Archipelago" north of Australia.
Light Green is Europe. Russia sold its special UN powers (permanent
seat in the Security Council, veto powers) to Canada in exchange for
assuming part of their enourmous debts; Sibera went to the USA in a
similar exchange. That (temporarily) improved their economy just enough
to qualify for membership in the EU - just in time for the war with the
Islamic Axis. Quebec joined almost immediately upon declaring its
independence from Canada.
Although Europe inherited two permanent Security Council seats in the
UN and a number of seats in the General Assembly from its member states,
part of the settlement that marked the official end of the European/
Islamic-Axis War was that each side would have a single General Assembly
seat, and that the Axis was given one of the permanent Security Council
seats.
Dark Green is an interesting case. An idea called 'community-ism' has
started to spread from Angola; it can be summed up by 'What's good for
the community is good for me.'
Canada finds itself caught between Europe, who it wants to be allied
with, and the USA, who it can't avoid being allied with. The blue areas
show Canada's territory; there have been a few changes since the turn of
the century.
Quebec (south of the 49th parallel) left Confederation some time ago.
When the government of Denmark found itself about to be flattened by
the Islamic Axis, the last act it passed before surrendering was to
declare Greenland to be under Canadian sovereignty until a referendum
could be held there to determine its final status. When the referendum
was held, the Greenlanders basically shrugged their shoulders and
stayed.
When Castro finally died (after living for as long as can be bought
with TL8 medicine), his clone (created with experimental forced-growth
technology, and /highly/ experimental braintaping) was put forward to
try and replace him without anybody noticing. To make one of the biggest
news stories of that decade short, it didn't work. The remaining
government looked at the American troops gathering in Florida, and
decided to avoid the inevitable invasion - they declared themselves part
of Canada.
The current provinces are British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario,
Newfoundland and Labrador, Acadia (consisting of the former provinces of
New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Cape Breton Island (which had split from
Nova Scotia), and Prince Edward Island), and Cuba. The territories are
Yukon, Denendeh (formerly known as the North West Territories; in the
referendum, the second-place choice was 'Bob'), Nunavut, Ungava (the
former province of Quebec north of the 49th parallel), and Greenland
(officially named 'Kalaalit Nunaat').
When the first few people in line for the British throne were killed,
the next in line happened to be a Catholic. According to the British
rules of succession, a Catholic cannot inherit the throne - but the most
recent Canadian constitution, including a Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, prohibited discrimination based on religion. So Britain had
the first non-Catholic in line crowned as their monarch, while Canada
acquired its own, seperate monarchy.
The next three areas are also loosely allied:
Yellow is the territory of the United States of America, including the
'New West' of the Siberian Territories. The USA has become much more
right-wing and fundamentalist compared to the turn of the century.
I'm strongly considering a constitutional convention having been held,
which would give me carte blanche to come up with a new form of
government, but I don't want to change things /too/ much - any
suggestions? Also, I'm also thinking about Texas having seceded and
Puerto Rico made into a state
Purple is the Islamic Axis, which was formed when a trio of leaders
're-interpreted' some details of the Koran, and declared jihad on the
'genetic blasphemers' of Europe.
Orange covers the nations that are technically independent, but are
pretty much under the political, economic, military, and social control
of the USA. Central and South America, Australia, and Japan have let the
Pacific become 'a Yankee pond'. The southern half of what used to be
India is also counted here.
White areas are 'No-Man's Lands', not under the control of any of the
above. These are mostly areas where NBRC warfare has taken a heavy toll
(eg, Turkey, India, north Morocco, south Burma), but also includes the
regions in Africa between the Islamic Axis and the community-ists (where
both sides are trying to convert the other) and Israel (who make heavy
use of life-support technologies designed for habitats in space).
Thank you for your time,
--
Foxtaur
The Rrangoon species is available at http://www.phantomcross.org/rrangoon/
"Foreign policy is dictated by powerful men's prejudices." -- The Cynic's
peste...@river-valley.net
U.S. orbit and asteroids things could get interesting.
Spacers looking down on the poor people stuck dirtside, while earth and
the planet bound colonies think about the poor space colonist stuck in
a tin can in the middle of nothingness.
China finally has a place to dump its excess population, does it take
volunteers or force them?
Foxtaur
> Foxtaur wrote:
>> A slight strangeness creeps in when looking at how much surface area
>> on a ship railguns require. A light railgun needs 200 square feet -
>> but with a volume of 500 cubic feet, that seems to imply that it's
>> only 2.5 feet thick. Similarly, a medium railgun needs 500 square
>> feet, implying that it's 10 feet thick, and a heavy railgun 1,500
>> square feet, implying a depth of 33 feet, 4 inches.
> The surface area requirements allow for the fact that you can't
> cover the entire surface of a ship with gun ports and still
> maintain structural integrity. The ACTUAL area is about one-tenth
> of that.
Ah, that makes much more sense now; thank you kindly.
--
Foxtaur
The Rrangoon species is available at http://www.phantomcross.org/rrangoon/
"Seeing is believing, but belief doesn't amount to much." -- The Cynic's
Foxtaur
> Foxtaur wrote:
>> Not to interrupt, but I just thought I'd offer you some numbers from
>> the railgun-launced Thor system I'm planning on using.
>>
>> The ammunition is primarily made of tungsten or depleted uranium,
>> but a certain amount of iron, nickel, or cobolt (or a self-generated
>> moving electric field) is necessary for the railgun's magnets to pull
>> it along. It has a density of 64 pounds per cubic foot.
> ?? That's barely more than water, which is 1/19th as dense
> as tungsten. Is there a tungsten core in there and a lot of
> hollow space?
Most of the volume is taken up with ablative heat shielding made of an
appropriate TL8 material (feel free to suggest one :) ), designed to
melt and/or break-off into appropriate aerodynamic shapes at each level
of the atmosphere, the entire missile covered with a metallic skin for
the railgun to grab on to. The final 'core', whatever its material,
still has enough force at sea level to make a dandy crater.
Thank you for your time,
--
Foxtaur
The Rrangoon species is available at http://www.phantomcross.org/rrangoon/
"It's a fundamental inequity of the universe, that, while you only have
one life to give, you can take as many as you damn well please." -- The
Foxtaur
> Foxtaur <spam.fox...@spam.warren.kill.com> wrote:
>> Theoretically, humanity might survive if the Earth was destroyed,
>> or otherwise made uninhabitable - as long as they're able to
>> refine uranium for the power plants and nuke-pulse drives,
> You can usually recycle radioactives for quite a while through
> breeder reactors. Even light radioactive "waste" elements
> generate useful heat for power generation.
>
> Don't forget solar-thermal drives. They just need ammonia,
> hydrogen, or water for reaction mass, a boiler, and a mirror.
> Much simpler than nuclear-pulse drives, especially for
> civilian survivors. Reasonably advanced (TL8) solar-thermal
> rockets are still simple, but get fuel efficiencies approaching
> TL8 nuclear rockets. If your colony has a lot of water (it's
> on or near a comet), this is a great system.
Actually, I've been planning on doing a bit of reading for a similar
solar-thermal generator, using mirrors to focus sunlight on pipes
carrying an appropriate fluid to drive a turbine. No need to muss around
with precisely doping semiconductors that can't survive more than one
tenth of a gravity.
> And don't forget solar sails, either.
Of course not - although using lasers instead of the sun isn't a viable
option (yet :) ).
>> maintain the solar panels against micrometeorite damage, extract
>> enough CHON from any available sources, and otherwise keep the
>> industrial machine moving.
>> Hm... perhaps the American space program is primarily orbital
>> habitats, while China is mainly working on establishing colonies
>> on large bodies?
> Put some of the US colonies near or on nickel-iron asteroids,
> and others near comets. Have the US view China as foolish for
> tying itself to larger bodies and the deep gravity wells -
> the future of humanity is in deep space, baby! Abundant
> sunlight for power (electrical or thermal), endless materials
> (silicon for solar panels, more solar panels!, water and CHON
> from comets for lifesupport and plastics, metals and ceramics
> from asteroids), etc. All the dreams of NASA in the 70s...
> All you need is enough warm bodies to keep the industrial
> machine moving and, better yet, growing. The number I've
> heard is about 1 million people for a technological civilization.
> Of course, you don't have to start with that many if your
> technology will last long enough for the population to grow
> that big.
And here's where China has an advantage over the USA. The Americans
might feel smug looking down from the top of the gravity well, but the
Chinese have warm bodies to spare (and are the leaders in mass-producing
life-support technology).
Thank you for your time,
--
Foxtaur
The Rrangoon species is available at http://www.phantomcross.org/rrangoon/
"The more complicated the situation, the sooner and more catastrophic
the eventual screwup." -- The Cynic's Book of Wisdom, by R.W.
Timothy Little
>2-3m long projectiles should be fine; I was thinking of the mass of
>the projectile. A 3m projectile with a 15:1 length to diameter ratio
>made of tungsten is 1820kg. If those projectiles have to be launched
>from Earth, the current US shuttle could only get about 15 into
>orbit.
Yes, this would be a big waste of resources.
>That's not bad, but I recall buckling can occur well before
>the yield strength of a material...still, 4400psi on
>the stiffest metal around (tungsten) doesn't seem to
>threaten buckling.
Yes, it looks OK. I was thinking more of why you might not want to go
to 30:1 or 100:1.
>Alternately, it occurred to me the de-orbit booster could ACCELERATE
>the projectile. Add on a few kilometers per second to offset
>atmospheric drag and hit with the original orbital velocity.
That gives returns that diminish very quickly. The higher the
velocity, the more drag on re-entry (quadratically), and the more mass
you lose with ablation. It would probably be better to have a lower
orbital speed (to allow smaller projectiles), but that isn't really
possible.
>If you start with good aim (hitting within 100m of the target
>sounds reasonable for TL8), you won't need a lot of adjusting.
>The rockets can be small.
The drag forces won't be that predictable. Still, small rockets might
be able to do the job.
>Or you can wait to use the rockets until you're closer
>to the target and need to make grosser corrections against
>stronger aerodynamic forces.
Yes, it's those forces that are the hard part. They're not really
predictable. Think "turbulence" at 8 km/s. 8-O
>How about some flush drag plates that only push out into
>the slip stream now and then?
That could well work. You'd want to keep them recessed rather than
flush I expect, but yes.
- Tim
cra...@hotmail.com
> solar-thermal generator, using mirrors to focus sunlight on pipes
> carrying an appropriate fluid to drive a turbine. No need to muss
around
> with precisely doping semiconductors that can't survive more than one
> tenth of a gravity.
Eh...you're using GURPS Space, aren't you?
GURPS Vehicles is more flexible and doesn't put G-limits
on solar arrays. Particularly ones built into the hulls of
vehicles rather than fanning outwards.
Presumably an array built with a light, average, or tougher
structure can readily handle 1G or so.
> > All you need is enough warm bodies to keep the industrial
> > machine moving and, better yet, growing. The number I've
> > heard is about 1 million people for a technological civilization.
> > Of course, you don't have to start with that many if your
> > technology will last long enough for the population to grow
> > that big.
>
> And here's where China has an advantage over the USA. The
> Americans might feel smug looking down from the top of
> the gravity well, but the Chinese have warm bodies to spare
> (and are the leaders in mass-producing life-support technology).
Fair enough. In the long run, I'd put my money on anyone
who went with space habitats rather than planets as coming
out on top (pun intended). You can only fit a few billion
people on a planet, but you can but trillions and quadrillions
and generally a whole freakin' bunch of people in space.
After all, there's a lot more space than planets.
Space has more energy, more easily accessible energy, no
weather (though the climate isn't pleasant to begin with),
more plentiful and more easily accessed resources on
asteroids and small moons, and more elbow room than planets.
Give the situation a century of boundless supplies and new
habitats and the USA will out-populate the planet-bound
Chinese, probably even hold an edge extra-terrestrial
populations sooner.
--
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
"I told [Clinton] I'd be happy to take the first year and then he
could have the second year while they're working this out. But
this sucks..." --Bob Dole
woef...@my-deja.com
Foxtaur <spam.fox...@spam.warren.kill.com> wrote:
but a
> certain amount of iron, nickel, or cobolt (or a self-generated moving
> electric field) is necessary for the railgun's magnets to pull it
along.
NO magnetic material is required. An electrically conductive skin is.
(A physics professor of mine launched an aluminum ring with a linear
accelerator as a demonstration in class...)
Paul
Gregory L. Hansen
>In article <L8lW5.164199$UO.6...@news22.bellglobal.com>,
> Foxtaur <spam.fox...@spam.warren.kill.com> wrote:
>but a
>> certain amount of iron, nickel, or cobolt (or a self-generated moving
>> electric field) is necessary for the railgun's magnets to pull it
>along.
>
>(A physics professor of mine launched an aluminum ring with a linear
>accelerator as a demonstration in class...)
Anyone for a quick electromagnetic launcher primer?
Everyone usually thinks of rail guns, which dumps a large current through
a projectile that is free to slide along conductive rails. The physics is
basic right-hand rule stuff. The current up one rail and down the other
creates a magnetic field in the middle, the current going through the
projectile in the magnetic field creates a propulsive force. The
motivation is the promise of higher speeds than chemical weapons can
supply. Also, as in the Army's All Electric Vehicle program, it can
simplify logistics and increase the ammo supply of a vehicle. The AEV
program would still use a diesel engine as the main powerplant, but diesel
fuel has a higher energy density than powder propellants, and can be used
more efficiently in an engine than powder is used in the barrel of a gun,
so it wouldn't even be true that you're trading a volume of powder for an
equal volume of diesel fuel. The projectiles of rail guns typically have
a long tungsten penetrator in a discarding aluminum sabot. The sabot,
which is the part that's really intended to carry the current, is usually
vee-shaped and has fins that press against the rails. Speeds in excess of
2000 meters per second have been reached, faster than typical tank main
guns. Rail guns suffer from degredation of the rails. You can imagine
it's hard on them to have a peice of metal spot-welding and ripping away
along the length.
Coil guns use an alternating current along a series of coils to drive a
conductive projectile. A current is induced in the projectile, and that
drives the projectile towards a region of lower magnetic field. It's the
same effect that makes an aluminum ring pop off of a transformer. The
projectiles again have conducting sabots, and they can contain any
warhead. They also don't have the same kind of problem with barrel wear.
For that reason, and also because there need not be any exposed
high-voltage surface, I personally prefer the coilgun. I have to wonder
what will happen if a rail gun is fired in the rain, for instance.
Theoretical speeds in excess of 5000 meters per second are predicted, but
as far as I know they haven't been able to shoot anything faster than 800
meters per second yet.
Electrochemical weapons use a propellant to fire a projectile, but also
use an electrical current to modify the flame so that the projectile can
be shot faster than normally possible. I suppose an electrothermal system
could also be used, where the energy to vaporize the propellant comes
entirely from the electrical current. But the last research I've seen on
that, which is years old, wasn't very successful.
To supply the high instantaneous power required, capacitors have been
popular. Lately, flywheels have been getting more popular. Built of
lightweight synthetic fibers so they can be spun at the highest possible
speeds, they're wired up in a way that an applied current will spin them
up like a motor and they can deliver current like a generator.
--
"Jugo de naranja, loco con pulpa!"
Gregory L. Hansen
The UN lag time is true to a point. But peacekeeping efforts still span
entire nations. Bad guys can still mingle with good guys, making a
permanent presence necessary and strategic bombing impossible. Think of
Bosnia, where artillery or air strips were bombed pretty much whenever the
UN decided to bomb them, but that didn't seem to be much of a deterrent.
Or Mogadishu, where gunmen mingled with hapless civilians, and even used
them as shields. 160 troops just aren't a lot when it comes to
nation-sized conflicts. The area is too big, there are too many people
involved. You have to figure what your mission is. If it's typical
commando raids like assassinations, prisoner snatches, or recon, that's
one thing. If you're maintaining a food distribution system, or putting
an armed presence between the borders of unfriendly nations, that's
another thing entirely.
Gregory L. Hansen
<peste...@river-valley.net> wrote:
>And if colonies continue like that, with China planetary bodies and
>U.S. orbit and asteroids things could get interesting.
>
>Spacers looking down on the poor people stuck dirtside, while earth and
>the planet bound colonies think about the poor space colonist stuck in
>a tin can in the middle of nothingness.
>
>China finally has a place to dump its excess population, does it take
>volunteers or force them?
Well, space colonization would never be a method of population control.
You'd have to put hundreds of thousands of people in space *per day*! But
it could be attractive to those looking for low population areas to
settle. People hoping to get some land of their own, which has
historically been a driving force for exploration and colonization.
Luke Campbell
> In article <slrn92iva...@freeman.little-possums.net>,
> t...@freeman.little-possums.net (Timothy Little) wrote:
>
> > That's right. I assumed near-optimal aerodynamics. Unfortunately 2
> > metres just isn't long enough to get the cross-sectional density you
> > need. You can do the calculation yourself if you like. I assumed a
> > tungsten penetrator of a curved, roughly conical shape. I also
> > assumed that it had perfect aerodynamic stability with no need for
> > control surfaces.
>
> I can't do the calculations myself - aerodynamics ain't my
> thing, so please feel free to share.
If we assume that the thor "crowbar" is moving at 10 times terminal
velocity, as stated, the math is simple. At terminal velocity, the
aerodynamic drag is providing 1 G of acceleration, exactly enough to
cancel the 1 G of acceleration in the opposite direction imposed by
earth's gravity. Aerodynamic forces scale with the square of the
velocity, so at 10 times terminal velocity, the aerodynamic drag will be
providing 10x10=100 G of acceleration.
In order to get the penetrator rod to experience less acceleration at any
given speed, you will need to increase the terminal velocity, probably by
giving it a higher sectional density.
Luke
Luke Campbell
> A question - if all the dikes, dams, and so forth were destroyed, how
> much of the Netherlands, Denmark, and the rest of the Low Countries
> would become submerged?
It depends on how much global warming has melted the ice sheets of Greenland
and Antarctica. Sea levels might be several meters higher, and it will not
be just the area of Denmark and surrounds that would be innundated.
Luke Campbell
> Space has more energy, more easily accessible energy, no
> weather (though the climate isn't pleasant to begin with),
> more plentiful and more easily accessed resources on
> asteroids and small moons, and more elbow room than planets.
More hard radiation, too, and needs more tech to be survivable.
Luke
Foxtaur
>> Actually, I've been planning on doing a bit of reading for a similar
>> solar-thermal generator, using mirrors to focus sunlight on pipes
>> carrying an appropriate fluid to drive a turbine. No need to muss
>> around with precisely doping semiconductors that can't survive more
>> than one tenth of a gravity.
>
> Eh...you're using GURPS Space, aren't you?
Indeed I am, at least until Christmas. :)
> GURPS Vehicles is more flexible and doesn't put G-limits
> on solar arrays. Particularly ones built into the hulls of
> vehicles rather than fanning outwards.
However, to generate 1.9 megawatts, the solar panels need to have an area
of 48 thousand square feet. Given that the HMSS Brock herself only has a
surface area of 120 thousand sf, only a fraction of which can be pointed
at the sun at any given time, it would seem that panels that fan outwards
from a given ship or habitat are nearly a necessity.
> Presumably an array built with a light, average, or tougher
> structure can readily handle 1G or so.
To what are you comparing this 'light' structure?
>> And here's where China has an advantage over the USA. The
>> Americans might feel smug looking down from the top of
>> the gravity well, but the Chinese have warm bodies to spare
>> (and are the leaders in mass-producing life-support technology).
> Fair enough. In the long run, I'd put my money on anyone
> who went with space habitats rather than planets as coming
> out on top (pun intended). You can only fit a few billion
> people on a planet, but you can but trillions and quadrillions
> and generally a whole freakin' bunch of people in space.
In the long run, yes - but since when does any given government worry
about that long a marathon? :)
> Space has more energy, more easily accessible energy, no
> weather (though the climate isn't pleasant to begin with),
...save for the occasional thousand-rad-per-hour solar storm...
> more plentiful and more easily accessed resources on
> asteroids and small moons, and more elbow room than planets.
Thank you for your time,
--
Foxtaur
The Rrangoon species is available at http://www.phantomcross.org/rrangoon/
"Things are always darkest before they go completely black." -- The
Luke Campbell
> Luke Campbell <lwc...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > Foxtaur wrote:
>
> >> A question - if all the dikes, dams, and so forth were destroyed, how
> >> much of the Netherlands, Denmark, and the rest of the Low Countries
> >> would become submerged?
>
> > It depends on how much global warming has melted the ice sheets of Greenland
> > and Antarctica. Sea levels might be several meters higher, and it will not
> > be just the area of Denmark and surrounds that would be innundated.
>
> One thing I've been considering is bringing up the fact that, at present,
> we seem to be near the tail-end of an interglacial period, and that it's
> quite possible that were it not for all of our greenhouse gas emissions,
> we might be witnessing the beginning of something similar to the 'Little
> Ice Age' in the Middle Ages...
In which case, increased ice in morthern latitudes reduce the global sea level,
the continental shelves are exposed, England is once again connected to the
continent, the Bering land bridge between Alaska and Siberia opens up, and
Denmark is left high and dry.
You will not see this kind of climate change in the next 200 years or so, even if
we did start to enter another ice age, it is just too fast. Still, all
indications are that our planet is currently warming rapidly and will likely
continue to do so in the near future. What effects this will have is still a
matter of some contention, it might even lead to increased precipitation in the
polar regions followed by a runaway albedo as the snow and ice in extreme
lattitudes reflects more and more sunlight, leading to a complete reversal of the
warming trend and the icing over of the northern lattitudes. Combine this with a
shut down of the ocean currents (and their ameliorating effects on teh world's
climate) from an influx of fresh water from the initial warming pulse melting the
icecaps and you could get extensive polar and temperate glaciation faster than
any natural ice age could ever acheive. Once again, you could hike from Siberia
to Alaska, at least until the glaciers plowed their way over the land bridge.
Luke
Foxtaur
> Foxtaur wrote:
>> A question - if all the dikes, dams, and so forth were destroyed, how
>> much of the Netherlands, Denmark, and the rest of the Low Countries
>> would become submerged?
> It depends on how much global warming has melted the ice sheets of Greenland
> and Antarctica. Sea levels might be several meters higher, and it will not
> be just the area of Denmark and surrounds that would be innundated.
One thing I've been considering is bringing up the fact that, at present,
we seem to be near the tail-end of an interglacial period, and that it's
quite possible that were it not for all of our greenhouse gas emissions,
we might be witnessing the beginning of something similar to the 'Little
Ice Age' in the Middle Ages...
Thank you for your time,
--
Foxtaur
The Rrangoon species is available at http://www.phantomcross.org/rrangoon/
"It's never what you expect." -- The Cynic's Book of Wisdom, by R.W.
Tom Knight
> a few companies listed in the Thomas Register ( www.thomasregister.com )
> that will do it for you.
Depleted uranium D20s. Mmmmmmm.
> And, of course, it's used in tank armor and
> anti-tank munitions.
So, would it be worth using in things like .50 sniper rifles, or is that just
cinematic?
--
"But with the help of a whingy sunflower, Prodigy's Keith Flint (or maybe it's
Tekken's Heihachi Mishima- I can't tell) goes from fatty to fightin' the Man
in days! Gardening IS good exercise!" -Nizate
- An Infinite Number Of Monkeys
Cyberpunk: Putting the funk into dysfunctional
"Sorry, I'm the only one around right now, and frankly, with spelling like
that I don't care how naked you are" - Clippy, www.theconversatron.com
cra...@hotmail.com
Luke Campbell <lwc...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> If we assume that the thor "crowbar" is moving at 10 times terminal
> velocity, as stated, the math is simple. At terminal velocity, the
> aerodynamic drag is providing 1 G of acceleration, exactly enough to
> cancel the 1 G of acceleration in the opposite direction imposed by
> earth's gravity. Aerodynamic forces scale with the square of the
> velocity, so at 10 times terminal velocity, the aerodynamic drag will
be
> providing 10x10=100 G of acceleration.
Heh. I thought drag went up with the cube of the velocity,
but this is a simple way of figuring the G-loading I can
understand.
Thanks.
--
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
"I told [Clinton] I'd be happy to take the first year and then he
could have the second year while they're working this out. But
this sucks..." --Bob Dole
Gregory L. Hansen
Tom Knight <kni...@theplanetoftheapes.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> You can have peices made of depleted uranium, there are
>> a few companies listed in the Thomas Register ( www.thomasregister.com )
>> that will do it for you.
>
>Depleted uranium D20s. Mmmmmmm.
There's a caveat. Depleted uranium peices for unregulated use (i.e. no
Health Physics division, no radiation training, no paperwork) must be
clad with some minimium thickness of stainless steel. It would be both
illegal and stupid to cut it open.
>> And, of course, it's used in tank armor and
>> anti-tank munitions.
>
>So, would it be worth using in things like .50 sniper rifles, or is that just
>cinematic?
Sure. The advantage is the higher density. When you're trying to get
through armor, it helps to put more mass into the effort. I don't know if
it has any advantage over tungsten, though. It's just cheaper.
And some armor-peircing bullets are made of bronze, because that's harder
to deform than copper or lead. You get better penetration when you can
eliminate the squish factor.
cra...@hotmail.com
Foxtaur <spam.fox...@spam.warren.kill.com> wrote:
> cra...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Foxtaur <spam.fox...@spam.warren.kill.com> wrote:
> >> Mike Miller wrote:
>
> >> Actually, I've been planning on doing a bit of reading for a
similar
> >> solar-thermal generator, using mirrors to focus sunlight on pipes
> >> carrying an appropriate fluid to drive a turbine. No need to muss
> >> around with precisely doping semiconductors that can't survive
more
> >> than one tenth of a gravity.
> >
> > Eh...you're using GURPS Space, aren't you?
>
> Indeed I am, at least until Christmas. :)
>
> > GURPS Vehicles is more flexible and doesn't put G-limits
> > on solar arrays. Particularly ones built into the hulls of
> > vehicles rather than fanning outwards.
>
> However, to generate 1.9 megawatts,
I was just saying that you could mount solar panels
on the hull of a vehicle that were nearly immune to
acceleration, not necessarily provide all the power
for high demand applications.
> it would seem that panels that fan outwards
> from a given ship or habitat are nearly a necessity.
Sure. Add on some guy wires to stiffen it against acceleration.
Attach them to the ends.
Mount them on heavy truss frameworks.
>
> > Presumably an array built with a light, average, or tougher
> > structure can readily handle 1G or so.
>
> To what are you comparing this 'light' structure?
Standard strength structures, the default in Vehicles.
>
> > Space has more energy, more easily accessible energy, no
> > weather (though the climate isn't pleasant to begin with),
>
> ...save for the occasional thousand-rad-per-hour solar storm...
A trifle. The habitats would, of course, be shielded with
meters of slag or metal like the proposed O'Niell habitats. :)
Peter Knutsen
Foxtaur wrote:
> Space Submarine: "HMSS Sir Isaac Brock"
>
> Spaces Mass Cost Notes
> Hull, 2M cf, SL (3160) 200 12 Area: 100 ksf.
> Total Compartment. - 40 .4
> Turrets, large, 2 <200> 40 2.4 Area: 20 ksf.
> cDR: 1 - 900 36 "Advanced" armor.
> Radical Stealth - 120 180
> Radical Cloaking - 240 360
If it doesn't expect to be attacked, ever, does it need stealth and
cloaking? I'd say maybe a bit more armour would be more helpful.
> Large Bridge 4 9 3.2
> Enhanced Sensors 1 12 23 Scan: 34/33. Power: 1.
> Astronomical - .1 .5
> Planetary - .12 .25
> Life Support, total 66 165 3.3 Capacity: 330. Power: 1.5.
If the ship carries 160 troopers, there ought to be more than 170
additional crew members to provide on-ship support.
My uneducated guess would be 3 crew members per trooper, as pure
trooper support. For training, medical aid, tactical analysis,
morale support and entertainment. Add ship maintenance crew on
top of this.
> Cabins 330 330 .99
Each crew member has his or her own cabin. This is sound in the
psychological sense (privacy is necessary) but the military
would tend towards a bunk arrangement.
> Crew, 150 - 15 -
> Missile bays, 2 2 2 .006
> 16 Hvy Nukes - 22.4 2.112
> 40 Lt Nukes - 12 3.44
> Entries, lrg, 3 3 9 .033
> Halls, 3 30 .6 .09
> Surgeries, 3 1.5 .42 .15
More surgeries might be good. If possible, could you have 2
surgery facilities per dropship?
> Ursaline - - .858 330-man, 2-year supply.
> Fission Core 1 4 .61
> Fission Power 200 800 160 400 MW.
> Fissionables - - 320 2 year supply.
IMO the ship should be self-sufficient for a longer period of time.
You should also consider giving the ship an NPU instead of
a reactor. It's a much simpler system, requires less
maintenance and can run for 14 years.
> Solar Panels 2 24 2.88 Area 96 ksf. 3.8 MW at 1 AU.
Isn't this a bit silly? Solar Panels are a big "hit me!" sign,
you don't put that on an expensive military vehicle.
> Batteries 10 250 50 450,000 MWs.
> Light Sails 2 100 100 Thrust: 20. 30 sq. mi.
Again is this useful? It's fairly hard to detect a light sail AFAIK,
but the trust is extremely low.
> Nuclear Pulse Drive 300 1200 240
> Fuel Tank 1000 25 170
> N Pellets - 12000 300
What's trust and delta-V for this propulsion system, given the
mass of the ship? How many pellets does it burn per second?
> Genetics Lab, P4 20 100 10 G:Bio-Tech, page 21.
That is a good idea, though.
> Dropship bays, 3 315 1.5 0.009
> Dropships, 3 - 3561.69 300.459 Includes mass of marines.
I thought it had 4 dropships.
> Cargo Space 872.5 0 0
> Cargo - 0 0
> Heavy Laser <100> 500 90 Power: 10,000.
> Heavy P-Beam <100> 500 90 Power: 29,000.
>
> SM: +11
> cSM: +1
> ASig: -7
> When using light sails: -1
> PSig: -7
> cHP: Hull: 1500
> Turrets: 300 each
>
> Total Mass: 21,183.83 tons.
> Total Cost: $2,459,817,000.00
> sAccel: 1.416 Gs
> Burn Endurance: 1h 8m 34.2s.
Using the bomb drive? Cool :-)
> Delta Vee: 57,100.2 m/s
Dat'e neat!
> Top Air Speed: 4,330.1 mph.
I don't think it should ever try flying that fast in 100k pascal
(Earth sea level pressure) atmosphere. It would heat up a lot.
The Space Shuttle can only do it because it actively wants to
convert kinetic energy to heat.
Also what propulsion system would the ship use if it was flying in
atmosphere?
> -----
>
> Dropships: "Detroit", "Queenston Heights", "Stony Creek", "Beaver Dam"
I count four ship names. But the fathership only has 3 bays.
> Spaces Mass Cost Notes
> Hull, 50k cf, SL (80) 200 12 Area: 10 ksf.
> cDR: 1 - 75 3 "Advanced" armor.
> Radical Stealth - 10 15
> Radical Cloaking - 20 30
In this case I am not going to complain about the stealth and
cloaking.
> Cockpit 0.5 2.5 1.1
> Basic Sensors 1 12 4.6 Scan: 32/31. Power: 0.5.
> Passenger Seats 4 5.6 0.036 60 men. Power: 0.03.
> Entry Module, small 0.5 2 0.007
Sometimes you will want a broad opening/air lock so that the
troopers can pour out quickly. Consider that it would not
take up a lot more space and mass, compared to the tactical
advantage it would give.
Even better, the ship should have two airlocks, one per
side, so that the enemy can't easily cover the only exit
with heavy fire.
> Crew, 60+pilot - 6.1 -
> Surgeries, 2 1 0.28 0.1
Oh it has surgeries. How wonderful!!!!
> Fission Core 1 4 0.61
> Fission Power 1 4 0.8 2 MW.
> Fissionables - - 0.16 2-year supply.
> Nuclear Pulse Drive 1 4 0.8 Thrust: 100.
> Fuel Tank 70 1.75 11.9
> N pellets - 840 21
I ask again what propulsion system does this vehicle use when
it's flying through Earth's atmosphere?
> SM: +8
> cSM: -2
> ASig: -10
> PSig: -10
> cHP: 150
>
> Total Mass: 1,187.23 tons.
> Total Cost: $100,153,000.
> sAccel: 0.084 Gs.
With that low sAccel, I hope it has very good streamlining for
atmospheric flight.
> Burn Endurance: 24 hours.
Very impressive!
> Delta Vee: 71,319.0 m/s.
I'm drooling!!!! :-)~~~~
> Top Air Speed: 866.0 mph.
> Time to reach Earth Orbit: 4 hours, 49 minutes, 42.6 seconds.
Time to reach Earth Orbit from where?
> --
> Foxtaur
--
Peter Knutsen
Brad Murray
> Sure. The advantage is the higher density. When you're trying to get
> through armor, it helps to put more mass into the effort. I don't know if
> it has any advantage over tungsten, though. It's just cheaper.
DU is not used solely for its density. It also has highly desirable
thermodynamic characteristics under high pressure: it becomes a superheated
bolt of molten metal. A dense one. In order for this to work, you need
to get it up to very high velocities (via discarding sabot etc.). With
a sniper rifle you are really looking for a KE solution, and KE is much
more effectively improved by increasing velocity, not by increasing mass.
Witness the .300 H&H Magnum. Not a heavy round, but it will stop anything
mammalian. Blue whales possibly exempt.
--
Brad Murray * Always carry a short length of fibre-optic cable. If
Perl Geek * you get lost, then you can drop it on the ground, wait
VSCA Founder * ten minutes, and ask the backhoe operator how to get
Magnet Oper * back to civilization. (Alan Frame)
Gregory L. Hansen
Brad Murray <b...@binky.phreeow.net> wrote:
>Gregory L. Hansen <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>> Sure. The advantage is the higher density. When you're trying to get
>> through armor, it helps to put more mass into the effort. I don't know if
>> it has any advantage over tungsten, though. It's just cheaper.
>
>DU is not used solely for its density. It also has highly desirable
>thermodynamic characteristics under high pressure: it becomes a superheated
>bolt of molten metal. A dense one. In order for this to work, you need
>to get it up to very high velocities (via discarding sabot etc.). With
>a sniper rifle you are really looking for a KE solution, and KE is much
>more effectively improved by increasing velocity, not by increasing mass.
>Witness the .300 H&H Magnum. Not a heavy round, but it will stop anything
>mammalian. Blue whales possibly exempt.
Any metal will become a superheated bolt of molten metal when it hits
something hard enough. For instance, a tank main gun round. For armor
penetration, you're better off if it *doesn't* become a superheated bolt
of molten metal, because molten metal easily deforms, spreading the area
of impact and cushioning the blow.
woef...@my-deja.com
>
> A trifle. The habitats would, of course, be shielded with
> meters of slag or metal like the proposed O'Niell habitats. :)
>
Meters of H2O would be as effective, but still allow visible light to
pass through.
Paul
cra...@hotmail.com
woef...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
> > A trifle. The habitats would, of course, be shielded with
> > meters of slag or metal like the proposed O'Niell habitats. :)
> >
>
> Meters of H2O would be as effective, but still
> allow visible light to pass through.
You'd need more meters of H2O but the same mass. Hmm. A
habitat based on an asteroid might not have the water
to spare, but a lot of slag and metal from mining. And
there would be slosh problems, but I think water would be
practical. (I swear I was thinking of water as shielding
after Luke mentioned radiation problems in space earlier
today).
Anymore, the big habitats (O'Niell cylinders, anyway) I sketch
up don't have windows to let in light. They have a central
light bar running down their axis that releases light gathered
by external mirrors. Water or light bars work equally well
(as far as I can tell) for toroidal stations.
--
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
"I told [Clinton] I'd be happy to take the first year and then he
could have the second year while they're working this out. But
this sucks..." --Bob Dole
Foxtaur
glad. :)
Peter Knutsen wrote:
> Foxtaur wrote:
>> Space Submarine: "HMSS Sir Isaac Brock"
>> cDR: 1 - 900 36 "Advanced" armor.
>> Radical Stealth - 120 180
>> Radical Cloaking - 240 360
> If it doesn't expect to be attacked, ever, does it need stealth and
> cloaking? I'd say maybe a bit more armour would be more helpful.
This is a good question. The Brock isn't the only military ship in
orbit (although it's one of the largest not directly owned by China or
the USA), and even non-military groups can acquire some impressive
lasers and missiles (not to mention NBRC weaponry). Being able to avoid
a hostile sensor lock-on is definately a good thing; having a 29
gigawatt particle beam might be a tad overkill for point defense, but is
also a good thing. :)
As for increasing the armour, I agree that's a good idea; I'd just like
to finish up the Brock's insides to get a better idea of the masses
involved first.
> If the ship carries 160 troopers, there ought to be more than 170
> additional crew members to provide on-ship support.
> My uneducated guess would be 3 crew members per trooper, as pure
> trooper support. For training, medical aid, tactical analysis,
> morale support and entertainment. Add ship maintenance crew on
> top of this.
I've gone back over the figures for the crew, and come up with the
following minimum figures:
Marines: Total: Company of 160, divided into 4 platoons
Major: 1 (needs Tactics, Leadership skills)
Command officers: 16-24 (useful might be Electronics Operation
(Communications, Sensors))
Engineers: 1x4=4 (Mechanic (nuke pulse drive, fission reactor))
Pilots: 1x4=4 (Pilot (Aerospace))
Medical: 8 (Physician, Surgery)
Service: 4 (cook, supplies officer, etc)
"Grunts": 115-123 (need Free Fall, Vacc Suit, Exoskeleton, Guns
(Light Automatic, Grenade Launcher), Gunner (Mortar), Throwing)
Navy:
Captain: 1 (needs Tactics, Leadership)
Command Officers: 9-22
Engineers: 35 (Mechanic (nuke pulse drive, light sail, fission reactor,
solar panel, batteries))
Gunners: 7 (Gunner (2 need Beams, 3 need Railgun, 2 need Guided
Missile))
Life Support: 6 (Mechanic (Life Support))
Pilot: 1 (needs Pilot (high-performance spacecraft, light sail))
Sensor Operator: 1 (needs Electronics Operation (Sensors))
Medical: 3 (Physician, Surgery)
Maintenance/Damage Control: 10
Service: 6 (yeoman, morale officer, etc)
Passenger Service: 1-5
Total: 80-107
Times 3 Shifts = 240 to 321
Specialists:
Geneticists: 5
Misc, passengers: 0-14
Total: 405 - 500
>> Cabins 330 330 .99
> Each crew member has his or her own cabin. This is sound in the
> psychological sense (privacy is necessary) but the military
> would tend towards a bunk arrangement.
That's another good observation... but one of the things I haven't
mentioned yet about this future is how the West has emphasized how
important "emotional health" is (eg, avoidance of bad memes) - and the
Brock happened to have more than enough space for individual cabins. Two
crew in each cabin would probably be more reasonable, though. :)
>> Surgeries, 3 1.5 .42 .15
> More surgeries might be good. If possible, could you have 2
> surgery facilities per dropship?
Of course - consider them added.
>> Fission Core 1 4 .61
>> Fission Power 200 800 160 400 MW.
>> Fissionables - - 320 2 year supply.
> IMO the ship should be self-sufficient for a longer period of time.
> You should also consider giving the ship an NPU instead of
> a reactor. It's a much simpler system, requires less
> maintenance and can run for 14 years.
What are you referring to by 'NPU' - some sort of 'nuclear power unit'?
What are its GURPS stats?
>> Solar Panels 2 24 2.88 Area 96 ksf. 3.8 MW at 1
AU.
> Isn't this a bit silly? Solar Panels are a big "hit me!" sign,
> you don't put that on an expensive military vehicle.
The panels are mainly an emergency backup, in case the fission reactor
is put out of commission (refitting, damaged, out of fuel, etc). After
all, the bridge has triply redundant avionics, so redundancy seems to be
a Good Thing, and the panels don't take up too much volume or mass when
folded up.
>> Light Sails 2 100 100 Thrust: 20. 30 sq. mi.
> Again is this useful? It's fairly hard to detect a light sail
> AFAIK, but the trust is extremely low.
The Brock is capable of interplanetary journeys, for example to Venus
or Mars. Even with gravity assists, these trips take quite a while, and
even the tiny bit of thrust from the light sails can add up to a useful
amount over that period of time.
>> Dropship bays, 3 315 1.5 0.009
>> Dropships, 3 - 3561.69 300.459 Includes mass of marines.
> I thought it had 4 dropships.
Indeed it does - the '3' was a typo that I didn't notice until after I
posted. :P
>> sAccel: 1.416 Gs
>> Burn Endurance: 1h 8m 34.2s.
> Using the bomb drive? Cool :-)
Well, it's not exactly 'bomb's... the fusion fuel pellets are
compressed by lasers until they explode, then the plasma is expelled
just like any other rocket engine.
>> Top Air Speed: 4,330.1 mph.
> I don't think it should ever try flying that fast in 100k pascal
> (Earth sea level pressure) atmosphere. It would heat up a lot.
> The Space Shuttle can only do it because it actively wants to
> convert kinetic energy to heat.
The Brock wouldn't normally fly in atmosphere (although it might land
on the Moon for refits and the like). For one thing, its engine doesn't
have enough endurance when firing full thrust to bring the ship all the
way down to the ground. Any such maneuvering would probably be more
along the lines of what the Enterprise did in Star Trek: Generations. ;)
> Also what propulsion system would the ship use if it was flying in
> atmosphere?
The Nuke Pulse, of course - the only other one, the light sail, won't
work within 200 miles of the Earth's surface. The exhaust is only
plasma, after all...
>> Dropships: "Detroit", "Queenston Heights", "Stony Creek", "Beaver
>> Dam"
>> Entry Module, small 0.5 2 0.007
> Sometimes you will want a broad opening/air lock so that the
> troopers can pour out quickly. Consider that it would not
> take up a lot more space and mass, compared to the tactical
> advantage it would give.
> Even better, the ship should have two airlocks, one per
> side, so that the enemy can't easily cover the only exit
> with heavy fire.
>> Surgeries, 2 1 0.28 0.1
> Oh it has surgeries. How wonderful!!!!
Well, /I/ thought it was a good idea not to force injured troopers to
wait until the dropships made it back up to the Brock... <g>
>> sAccel: 0.084 Gs.
> With that low sAccel, I hope it has very good streamlining for
> atmospheric flight.
It has a Top Air Speed of 866.0 mph; not bad, but it shouldn't be
getting into any dogfights. (Unless I come up with a completely new
design, anyway. <g>
>> Burn Endurance: 24 hours.
> Very impressive!
<grin>
When first designing the dropships, I made a quick assumption that
their missions wouldn't last longer than the life support that comes
inbuilt with the cockpit and passenger seating - a maximum of 12 hours
flight out, 24 hours stopover with the troopers unloaded, and 12 hours
flight back. Much to my surprise, I was actually able to build a useful
dropship with those figures without tweaking.
>> Time to reach Earth Orbit: 4 hours, 49 minutes, 42.6 seconds.
> Time to reach Earth Orbit from where?
From the surface of the Earth.
Thank you for your time,
--
Foxtaur
The Rrangoon species is available at http://www.phantomcross.org/rrangoon/
"If you can keep your head when those about you are losing theirs, you
obviously don't know what's going on." -- The Cynic's Book of Wisdom, by R.W.
Foxtaur
>> > Space has more energy, more easily accessible energy, no
>> > weather (though the climate isn't pleasant to begin with),
>>
>> ...save for the occasional thousand-rad-per-hour solar storm...
>
> A trifle. The habitats would, of course, be shielded with
> meters of slag or metal like the proposed O'Niell habitats. :)
Actually, one thing I really want to figure out is the statistics for
using tanks of water just inside the hull as radiation shielding. (And
with a battery, electrolysis unit and HO-chemical rocket, it's also good
for fuel. <g>) I know the PF for a given thickness of water, its density,
and the stats for fuel tanks - I just haven't done all the calculations
for relating the ship's surface area and so forth to each other.
Thank you for your time,
--
Foxtaur
The Rrangoon species is available at http://www.phantomcross.org/rrangoon/
"The future strikes with blinding speed. The past takes its time and
/aims/." -- The Cynic's Book of Wisdom, by R.W.
Brad Murray
> Any metal will become a superheated bolt of molten metal when it hits
> something hard enough. For instance, a tank main gun round. For armor
> penetration, you're better off if it *doesn't* become a superheated bolt
> of molten metal, because molten metal easily deforms, spreading the area
> of impact and cushioning the blow.
I over simplified. DU has the nice characteristic that more of the KE gets
converted into heat than with most metals, consequently your molten metal
bolt makes a dandy penetrator by handily burning through most armour. It
is not the same as the jet generated by a HEAT round. Again, DU is not used
for its mass alone. Mass is just not that interesting when trying to
generate high KE.
As for deformation, I don't know the malleability of uranium, depleted or
otherwise, but its stiffness is not an issue on impact---it doesn't stay
solid.
Foxtaur
so, here she is:
-----
H.M.S.S. Sir Isaac Brock
Spaces Mass Cost Notes
Hull, 2M cf, SL (3160) 200 12 Area: 100 ksf.
Total Compartment. - 40 .4
Turrets, large, 2 <200> 40 2.4 Area: 20 ksf.
cDR: 7 - 6300 252 "Advanced" armor.
Radical Stealth - 120 180
Radical Cloaking - 240 360
Large Bridge 4 9 3.2
Small Bridge 1 2.9 1 Emergency Backup
Enhanced Sensors 1 12 23 Scan: 34/33. Power: 1.
Astronomical - .1 .5
Planetary - .12 .25
Basic Sensors 0.5 12 4.6 33/32, 1 MW. Backup.
Light Sails 2 100 100 Thrust: 20. 30 sq. mi.
Nuclear Pulse Drive 300 1200 240 Consume 10,500 tons/hour
Fuel Tank 1000 25 170
N Pellets - 12000 300
Fission Core 1 4 .61
Fission Power 200 800 160 400 MW.
Fissionables - - 320 2 year supply.
Solar Panels 4 49 5.76 Area 192 ksf. 7.6 MW at 1 AU.
Batteries 10 250 50 450,000 MWs.
Missile bays, 2 2 2 .006
16 Hvy Nukes - 22.4 2.112
40 Lt Nukes - 12 3.44
Heavy Laser <100> 500 90 Power: 10,000.
Heavy P-Beam <100> 500 90 Power: 29,000.
Railgun, heavy 100 330 250 Power: 2,000.
Railgun, avg 10 33 25 Power: 660.
Railgun, light 1 3.3 2.5 Power: 20.
R. Ammo, heavy 10 160 46 50 shots
R. Ammo, avg 10 160 46 450 shots
R. Ammo, light 10 160 46 4,500 shots
Cabins 250 250 .75
Crew - 34 -
Life Support, total 100 250 5 Capacity: 500. Power: 5.
Entries, lrg, 3 3 9 .033
Halls, 3 30 .6 .09
Surgeries, 10 5 1.4 .5
Ursaline - - 1.3 500-man, 2-year supply.
Workshops, 25 62.5 375 1.5
Labs, 5 10 50 5
Genetics Lab, P4 20 100 10 G:Bio-Tech, page 21.
Megacomputer 0.5 6 15 Hard, Hi-Cap, Complex 6
Dropship bays, 4 420 2 0.012
Dropships, 4 - 4748.92 400.612 Includes mass of marines.
Cargo Space 592 0 0
Cargo - 0 0
SM: +11
cSM: +1
ASig: -7
When using light sails: -1
PSig: -7
cHP: Hull: 1,500 (HP: 15,000)
Turrets: 300 each (HP: 3,000 each)
cDR: 1
DR: 100
Surface Area: 120,000 square feet (including turrets)
Volume: 2,000,000 cubic feet (not including turrets)
Dimensions (not including turrets):
Length: 160 feet
Width: 125 feet
Height: 100 feet
Total Mass: 29,112.74 tons.
Total Cost: $3,221,217,000.00
Thrust: 30,000
sAccel: 30,000 / 29,112.74 = 1.030 Gs
Burn Endurance: FuelMass / Consum = 1h 8m 34.2s.
Delta Vee: sAccel * BurnEnd * 3600 * 9.8 = 41,548.8 m/s
Top Air Speed: 4,330.1 mph.
Workshops:
Armoury (Body Armour, Spaceship Armour, Spaceship Beam Weapons,
Spaceship Railguns, Spaceship Missiles, Vehicle Armour);
Electronics (Communications, Computers, Medical, Security Systems,
Sensors, Weapons);
Engineer (Electrical, Guns, Vehicles);
Mechanic (Nuclear Pulse Drive, Light Sail, Fission Plant, Solar Panels,
Batteries, Life Support, Spaceship Beam Weapons, Spaceship Railguns,
Spaceship Missiles).
Labs:
Astrogation, Astronomy, Computer Programming.
-----
Dropships: "Detroit", "Queenston Heights", "Stony Creek", "Beaver Dam"
Spaces Mass Cost Notes
Hull, 50k cf, SL (80) 200 12 Area: 10 ksf.
cDR: 1 - 75 3 "Advanced" armor.
Radical Stealth - 10 15
Radical Cloaking - 20 30
Cockpit 0.5 2.5 1.1
Basic Sensors 1 12 4.6 Scan: 32/31. Power: 0.5.
Passenger Seats 4 5.6 0.036 60 men. Power: 0.03.
Entry Module, small 0.5 2 0.007
Crew, 60+pilot - 6.1 -
Surgeries, 2 1 0.28 0.1
Fission Core 1 4 0.61
Fission Power 1 4 0.8 2 MW.
Fissionables - - 0.16 2-year supply.
Nuclear Pulse Drive 1 4 0.8 Thrust: 100.
Fuel Tank 70 1.75 11.9 Consum: 35 tons/hour
N pellets - 840 21
SM: +8
cSM: -2
ASig: -10
PSig: -10
cHP: 150
Total Mass: 1,187.23 tons.
Total Cost: $100,153,000.
sAccel: Thrust / Mass = 0.084 Gs.
Burn Endurance: FuelMass / Consum = 24 hours.
Delta Vee: sAccel * BurnEnd * 3600 * 9.8 = 71,319.0 m/s.
Top Air Speed: 866.0 mph.
Time to reach Earth Orbit: 4 hours, 49 minutes, 42.6 seconds.
Time to escape Earth Orbit: 6 hours, 49 minutes, 42.6 seconds.
-----
Crew:
Total: 405 - 500
-----
Thank you for your time,
--
Foxtaur
The Rrangoon species is available at http://www.phantomcross.org/rrangoon/
"Civil confusions often spring from trifles but decide great issues."
-- Aristotle (Greek philosopher) (384 - 322 BC)
Luke Campbell
> In article <3A2CE8D4...@theplanetoftheapes.freeserve.co.uk>,
> Tom Knight <kni...@theplanetoftheapes.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >So, would it be worth using in things like .50 sniper rifles, or is that just
> >cinematic?
>
> Sure. The advantage is the higher density. When you're trying to get
> through armor, it helps to put more mass into the effort. I don't know if
> it has any advantage over tungsten, though. It's just cheaper.
I have heard that DU cleaves at 45 degree angles, so even if part of the
penetrator shears off, the remaining part is still sharp.
Don't know how reliable this is, though.
Luke
Luke Campbell
> In article <90jfhc$j77$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> woef...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > A trifle. The habitats would, of course, be shielded with
> > > meters of slag or metal like the proposed O'Niell habitats. :)
> > >
> >
> > Meters of H2O would be as effective, but still
> > allow visible light to pass through.
>
> You'd need more meters of H2O but the same mass. Hmm. A
> habitat based on an asteroid might not have the water
> to spare, but a lot of slag and metal from mining. And
> there would be slosh problems, but I think water would be
> practical. (I swear I was thinking of water as shielding
> after Luke mentioned radiation problems in space earlier
> today).
Speaking of radiation ...
One of my handy dandy science bookmarks is the Particle Data Group
site. If you go to
http://www-pdg.lbl.gov/2000/contents_sports.html#expmethetc
and click on "Passage of particles through matter" (either PostScript or
PDF, your choice), you get some neat tables detailing the penetration of
heavy charged particles and the attenuation lengths of high energy
photons. [For the charged particles, they list the momentum in GeV/c.
If you have an energy (usually the kinetic energy, not the total
relativistic energy) in GeV(=1000 MeV) you can find the momentum with
the formula
(kinetic energy+mass/c^2)^2=momentum^2*c^2+mass^2*c^4
where the mass of a proton is nearly 1 GeV/c^2]
Now, a little bit of seaching I had done earlier turned up the
following. Most solar protons have energies of an MeV to about 10 MeV,
trifling amounts that can be stopped by matter only a micron thick or
so. However, some protons can have energies in the hundreds of MeV, and
a few can get up to a whopping 10 GeV! A 100 MeV proton can penetrate a
collumn density of about 10 to 15 g/cm^2 (depending on the material), or
10 cm of water, 1.5 cm of iron, or 1 cm of lead. A 1 GeV proton will
penetrate a column density of about 300 to 500 g/cm^2, or 3 to 5 meters
of water, 50 cm of iron, or about 10 cm of lead. A 10 GeV proton will
punch through a column density of 6000 to 9000 g/cm^2, or 60 meters of
water, 8 to 9 meters of iron, or 4 to 5 meters of lead.
Once you have stopped the protons, you will need to worry about stopping
the secondary radiation you get when the proton stops by ramming into a
nucleus (most protons stop by ionizing the atoms as it whizzes past,
continually loosing energy in the process. Some stop by a colision with
a nucleus, and generate a spray of radiation in the process). This will
produce nasty things like pions which are very penetrating, as well as
radiation cascades of gamma rays which produce positron-electron pairs
when absorbed which produce more gamma rays.
Fortunately, low energy protons will produce even lower energy pions and
gammas, so these will need less thickness of matter to stop. Figure
about double the thickness to stop a proton for a given energy in order
to stop the radiation shower the proton might produce, and you'll
probably not be too off.
Luke
Luke Campbell
> Foxtaur wrote:
>
> > Light Sails 2 100 100 Thrust: 20. 30 sq. mi.
>
> Again is this useful? It's fairly hard to detect a light sail AFAIK,
> but the trust is extremely low.
Hard to detect? They're 30 square miles in area! If nothing else, you've got
a 10 mile circumference for scattering radar.
Luke
peste...@river-valley.net
> Surgeries
What is a Surgery? Just a table and a hold for medical supplies, or a
full operating suite, or something in between?
You might consider having the marines landing craft be a vehicle
seperate from the vehicle that lands them. In a movie I saw 'Space
Marines' the assult vehicle is attached to the lander/fighter like a
cargo container, on landing the marines are let go while the
lander/fighter does air support or goes back for the next assult
vehicle. The assult vehicle is tracked, carries six missiles in a top
mounted launcher, and has a swing down door in back for the marines. Of
course if the two parts became seperated in flight I wouldn't want to
be the marines.
Gregory L. Hansen
Brad Murray <b...@binky.phreeow.net> wrote:
>Gregory L. Hansen <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>> Any metal will become a superheated bolt of molten metal when it hits
>> something hard enough. For instance, a tank main gun round. For armor
>> penetration, you're better off if it *doesn't* become a superheated bolt
>> of molten metal, because molten metal easily deforms, spreading the area
>> of impact and cushioning the blow.
>
>I over simplified. DU has the nice characteristic that more of the KE gets
>converted into heat than with most metals, consequently your molten metal
>bolt makes a dandy penetrator by handily burning through most armour. It
>is not the same as the jet generated by a HEAT round. Again, DU is not used
>for its mass alone. Mass is just not that interesting when trying to
>generate high KE.
>
>As for deformation, I don't know the malleability of uranium, depleted or
>otherwise, but its stiffness is not an issue on impact---it doesn't stay
>solid.
I don't get it. The DU couldn't "burn" through armor any more than lead
will, it's not carrying any extra energy that lead doesn't. But more than
that, heating and melting the projectile is counter-productive! You'd
prefer something stiff and hard, something that forces a small impact
point on the armor to absorb as much of the kinetic energy as possible.
If you want something that will melt, use lead.
Foxtaur
>> Surgeries
>
> What is a Surgery? Just a table and a hold for medical supplies, or a
> full operating suite, or something in between?
A 'Surgery' is defined as "A well-equipped surgery, including an
operating table (fully gyrostabilized for shipboard use) that allows one
person to be operated on at a time". (And I hope I just didn't break any
copyright laws...)
There aren't that many specialized medical items listed in my references
- although now that I think about it, the Brock probably should have a
selection of replacement cybernetic limbs and organs for quick replacement
of any missing parts, and perhaps a cloning tank or two should the wounded
trooper or naval officer decide to have the limb grown on the ship (as
opposed to being sent off to a hospital). One question is that since
forced-growth technology in this setting is still experimental (and costs
10x the standard price, not including failures), whether the tanks would
include such machinery. Hm...
> You might consider having the marines landing craft be a vehicle
> seperate from the vehicle that lands them. In a movie I saw 'Space
> Marines' the assult vehicle is attached to the lander/fighter like a
> cargo container, on landing the marines are let go while the
> lander/fighter does air support or goes back for the next assult
> vehicle. The assult vehicle is tracked, carries six missiles in a top
> mounted launcher, and has a swing down door in back for the marines. Of
> course if the two parts became seperated in flight I wouldn't want to
> be the marines.
If you want to dig up some of the earlier messages in this thread, the
general mission for the drop troopers is for the dropship to descend to
around 10-30 kilometres above the target zone, at which time the troopers,
fully suited and with a 'TL8 reentry pack', jump out. At the appropriate
height, a parachute deploys, probably along with some chaff, flares, and
similar countermeasures.
I've deliberately not given the troopers ground vehicles. For one, with
their exoskeletal suits, they don't really need one to haul stuff around
in (heck, the standard personal weapon is an assault chaingun <g>); for
another, such a vehicle makes a nice, slow, relatively-hard-to-maneuver
inviting target for somebody to designate with a laser.
(I'm still trying to think of the ramifications of a dropship that can
take off from the Earth, land on the Moon, and land back where it started
- and then do it all /again/ - without refeuling... of course, one load of
fuel happens to cost 21 million dollars...)
Thank you for your time,
--
Foxtaur
The Rrangoon species is available at http://www.phantomcross.org/rrangoon/
"People die." -- The Cynic's Book of Wisdom, by R.W.
W.M. Cavanagh
: I've revised (refitted?) the Brock according to various suggestions; and
: so, here she is:
: Dropships: "Detroit", "Queenston Heights", "Stony Creek", "Beaver Dam"
Just a small thing: Stoney Creek is spelled thus, or at least it
was when I was growing up there.
Regards,
MC.
Peter Knutsen
Luke Campbell wrote:
>
> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>
> > Foxtaur wrote:
> >
> > > Light Sails 2 100 100 Thrust: 20. 30 sq. mi.
> >
> > Again is this useful? It's fairly hard to detect a light sail AFAIK,
> > but the trust is extremely low.
>
> Hard to detect? They're 30 square miles in area! If nothing else, you've got
> a 10 mile circumference for scattering radar.
I know they have a large surface area, but are they easy to detect
with RADAR?
> Luke
--
Peter Knutsen
Peter Knutsen
Foxtaur wrote:
>
> I've revised (refitted?) the Brock according to various suggestions; and
> so, here she is:
>
> -----
>
> H.M.S.S. Sir Isaac Brock
>
> Spaces Mass Cost Notes
> Hull, 2M cf, SL (3160) 200 12 Area: 100 ksf.
We leave this because it indicates size.
> Light Sails 2 100 100 Thrust: 20. 30 sq. mi.
> Nuclear Pulse Drive 300 1200 240 Consume 10,500 tons/hour
> Fuel Tank 1000 25 170
> N Pellets - 12000 300
> Fission Core 1 4 .61
> Fission Power 200 800 160 400 MW.
> Fissionables - - 320 2 year supply.
> Solar Panels 4 49 5.76 Area 192 ksf. 7.6 MW at 1 AU.
> Batteries 10 250 50 450,000 MWs.
For how long can the ship survive on battery power, if we assume
that only vital systems are powered?
The reactor gives out 400 MW, the batteries store 450'000 MWs,
so assuming the ship burns the full reactor ouput, it can last
1125 seconds with the reactor shut down. That's 18 3/4 minute.
Realistically, if the reactor goes out, some systems will be
shut down, so that the ship can last much longer than that.
But how much longer. You need to mention, somewhere, the
power consumption of the vital systems, so that this
calculation is easy to make.
The more battery power, the better. You can never have too much of
it, IMO.
But no matter what, consider stating that the batteries are seperated
into 3-4 power banks at various locations aboard the ship so that
one hit by a "small" weapon can't take out the entire energy
storage system.
> Halls, 3 30 .6 .09
Consider adding more halls. Just a few more.
> Workshops, 25 62.5 375 1.5
Are these workshops divided into specialities?
> Megacomputer 0.5 6 15 Hard, Hi-Cap, Complex 6
I talked about the Megacomputer in e-mail (if you didn't get my
e-mail, it's because I failed to bypass your spamblocker)
> Dropship bays, 4 420 2 0.012
> Dropships, 4 - 4748.92 400.612 Includes mass of marines.
>
> Cargo Space 592 0 0
> Cargo - 0 0
>
> SM: +11
> cSM: +1
> ASig: -7
> When using light sails: -1
Does it change when the solar power panels are deployed?
> PSig: -7
> cHP: Hull: 1,500 (HP: 15,000)
> Turrets: 300 each (HP: 3,000 each)
> cDR: 1
> DR: 100
You forgot to update this to cDR 7.
> Surface Area: 120,000 square feet (including turrets)
> Volume: 2,000,000 cubic feet (not including turrets)
> Dimensions (not including turrets):
> Length: 160 feet
> Width: 125 feet
> Height: 100 feet
IMO the dimensions are too close to cubic to be truly sexy.
You should consider something sleeker and cooler.
You know, psychological warfare.
One option is the tapering shape. But this may remind people
of Star Wars (players, for one, but also the actual people
who live in the game world - presumably the Star Wars movies
are part of their cultural heritage).
Anyway consider making the ship less cubelike by reducing height
and making it longer.
If you increase length to 250 feet and keep width at 125 feet,
you get height 64 feet.
Or try length 400 feet, width 100 feet, then you get height 50 feet.
Note, though, that a more cubelike shape will make damage control-
easier and also makes sense if you consider armour and heat loss
issues. From all of these viewpoints, you want the surface-to-volume
ratio to be as small as possible (the ideal shape would be a perfect
sphere).
But psychology plays a role too. First of all, the military guys
have to convince some politicians to fund the beast. If it looks
cool, they're more inclined to say yes.
Second, you want the enemy to fear your craft.
> Total Mass: 29,112.74 tons.
> Total Cost: $3,221,217,000.00
> Thrust: 30,000
> sAccel: 30,000 / 29,112.74 = 1.030 Gs
> Burn Endurance: FuelMass / Consum = 1h 8m 34.2s.
> Delta Vee: sAccel * BurnEnd * 3600 * 9.8 = 41,548.8 m/s
> Top Air Speed: 4,330.1 mph.
>
> Workshops:
> Armoury (Body Armour, Spaceship Armour, Spaceship Beam Weapons,
> Spaceship Railguns, Spaceship Missiles, Vehicle Armour);
Five
> Electronics (Communications, Computers, Medical, Security Systems,
> Sensors, Weapons);
Six
> Engineer (Electrical, Guns, Vehicles);
Three
> Mechanic (Nuclear Pulse Drive, Light Sail, Fission Plant, Solar Panels,
> Batteries, Life Support, Spaceship Beam Weapons, Spaceship Railguns,
> Spaceship Missiles).
Nine.
5 + 6 + 3 + 9 = 23, you wrote earlier that the ship has 2 workshops.
Which two worships are twinned?
> Labs:
> Astrogation, Astronomy, Computer Programming.
You wrote the ship has 5 labs, which are twinned?
(me, I'd go for a triplet Computer Programming lab with lots
of staff, because it seems to me that electronic warfare will
play a large role)
> -----
>
> Dropships: "Detroit", "Queenston Heights", "Stony Creek", "Beaver Dam"
>
> Spaces Mass Cost Notes
> Hull, 50k cf, SL (80) 200 12 Area: 10 ksf.
> cDR: 1 - 75 3 "Advanced" armor.
Would it be a huge loss to give it cDR 2 or 3?
For a marine, it's one thing to be out on the battlefield where
you're on your own and live or die according to how tough you
are, but sitting cooped up in a troop carrier is much less fun.
They'd be more comfortable if it had better armour (and yes,
I know that DR 100 is already pretty impressive, but DR 200
would be twice as impressive)
> Radical Stealth - 10 15
> Radical Cloaking - 20 30
> Cockpit 0.5 2.5 1.1
> Basic Sensors 1 12 4.6 Scan: 32/31. Power: 0.5.
> Passenger Seats 4 5.6 0.036 60 men. Power: 0.03.
> Entry Module, small 0.5 2 0.007
You did not follow my advice about several larger exits, which
makes it possible to get the troops out of the ship faster and
makes it harder for enemy fire to pin the tropps inside the ship?
> Crew, 60+pilot - 6.1 -
> Surgeries, 2 1 0.28 0.1
2 surgeries per drop ship is good, but you might consider adding
a fifth drop ship that is filled with nothing but surgeries. You
know, to improve troop morale.
> Fission Core 1 4 0.61
> Fission Power 1 4 0.8 2 MW.
> Fissionables - - 0.16 2-year supply.
Have the fathership carry spare uranium rods, so that the dropships
can be refueled.
> Nuclear Pulse Drive 1 4 0.8 Thrust: 100.
> Fuel Tank 70 1.75 11.9 Consum: 35 tons/hour
> N pellets - 840 21
>
> SM: +8
> cSM: -2
> ASig: -10
> PSig: -10
> cHP: 150
>
> Total Mass: 1,187.23 tons.
> Total Cost: $100,153,000.
What dimensions does this craft have?
> Crew:
>
> Marines: Total: Company of 160, divided into 4 platoons
> Major: 1 (needs Tactics, Leadership skills)
> Command officers: 16-24 (useful might be Electronics Operation
> (Communications, Sensors))
> Engineers: 1x4=4 (Mechanic (nuke pulse drive, fission reactor))
> Pilots: 1x4=4 (Pilot (Aerospace))
> Medical: 8 (Physician, Surgery)
> Service: 4 (cook, supplies officer, etc)
I don't think you need cooks at TL8. It might be a good idea to
provide good food about the fathership, and have regular cooks
working up there (also having a good food system, more like a
huge greenhouse than an algae-based food system) but as long as
the troops are on the ground, they should eat dry rations.
Peter Knutsen
peste...@river-valley.net wrote:
>
> > Surgeries
>
> What is a Surgery? Just a table and a hold for medical supplies, or a
> full operating suite, or something in between?
Good question. Space or Vehicles probably describes it, but
neither books are avaiable to me at the moment.
> You might consider having the marines landing craft be a vehicle
> seperate from the vehicle that lands them. In a movie I saw 'Space
> Marines' the assult vehicle is attached to the lander/fighter like a
This scheme was also used in the USA TV-show made a few years
ago, called "Space: Above and Beyond" or something (I'm not
100% positive about the English title, but it was about a squad
of multi-role USAn "marines" working sometimes as space fighter
pilots (in fighter crafts capable of endoatmospheric flight)
sometimes as ground troops, somethings they did onboard ship
duty as gunners and sensor operators. They also did some infil-
tration work at one point but I lost interest of the show
since it was too... well, melodramatic. Characters were stereo-
typic even though it did try to usa good science and technology)
> cargo container, on landing the marines are let go while the
> lander/fighter does air support or goes back for the next assult
> vehicle. The assult vehicle is tracked, carries six missiles in a top
> mounted launcher, and has a swing down door in back for the marines. Of
> course if the two parts became seperated in flight I wouldn't want to
> be the marines.
You could then have maybe 3-4 drop ships and 6-8 actual drop
containers. Most of the drop containers could contain seated
marines, one could contain nothing but surgical facilities,
one could contain a fullscale weapons & equipment maintenance
workshop, and one could contain a field kitchen and food
creation system (probably algae-based, but fresh algae can
taste better than dry rations).
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Peter Knutsen
Peter Knutsen
Foxtaur wrote:
> Strangely enough, when I searched Deja, I was able to find some of the
> threads, but whoever posted the initial messages and any statistics about
> those weapons doesn't have their messages archived there.
Might be because the guy who posted the stuff, Jay Stranahan,
uses the "X-No Archive: Yes" feature which prevents Deja.com
from archiving the postings.
I don't know if he does use that header (and am too lazy to check),
but this is the most likely reason for you not being able to find
his stuff via www.deja.com