Particle Accelerator Viability

Perhaps the greatest issue making this more of a mod weapon than a future in game addition, is mainly that while we have a couple workable real life lasers we could hypothetically weaponize with enough power dumped into them in game, we do not really have nearly enough data on weaponizing particle beams. In a basic sense you also have to deal with intense focusing issues, as the charged like particles naturally want to repel each other. Neutral particles fix this, but are neutral so they are incredibly hard to convince to do any serious kind of work.

Neutron effects are already in game for nukes, so I suggested before that black box weapons should have a neutron beam option. Like the laser option, but with neutron speed/energy instead of wavelength. Then again, QSwitched has his plate full as it is.

The problem with neutron or other neutral particle beams is that there is no known effective design today. If there were, it seems that they would be relatively short range due to impossibilities to focus them as well as lasers.
Also, at the moment, neutrons seems to be hard-countered by lithium-6.

That said, without going as far as atoms, I wonder how far can sandblasters be pushed. mg? μg?

I do like partical beams, and pulse lasers.

EDIT: more on topic I thing a better idea would be to fire a shell full of Fusion boost from a nuclear warhead and use a big laser to fuse the fuel to achive what I think you want to achive

...if you're capable of inertial confinement fusion via laser you by definition have a really honking big laser.  Why don't you just use it to shoot the enemy ship directly?  It's faster, simpler, you don't run the risk of your payload being shot down en route and you don't need to deal with setting up mirrors so that the laser pulse compresses the fusion fuel correctly.

In a word, yes, but it's not going to work like you think it is.

You're neglecting the iron peak in terms of the involved energetics.  Any energy you put into fusing two nuclei together above iron is wasted, because the resultant atom stores it as mass rather than releasing it as energy.  At best you'll do some damage through direct energy transfer.  You're also going to get very few fission events against enemy armor unless you crank up the flux, so you are, at all times, literally doing more damage through direct energy transfer than you are by fissioning anything.

You're also not considering the design of the accelerator itself.  A uranium atom is around 200 times heavier than a single proton, which means that you'll get proportionally less acceleration, and you'll need to put in roughly 14 times as much energy to get it to the same velocity (discounting relativistic effects, I haven't had the time to derive/look up the relevant equations yet).  You could compensate for this by cranking up the voltage, but then you'll run the risk of vacuum arcing (BAD), or you could increase the length of your accelerator (also bad, different reasons) or use a cyclotron.  Frankly I'm still digging up the relevant equations.

I think the mistake that you're making here is comparing individual fissile nuclei with a fission bomb.  Remember that you need a specific bomb geometry, a sufficiently high mass of fissile material (enough to sustain the chain reaction), and a sufficient neutron flux (more than you'll achieve with a particle accelerator, I'd wager) to get one of them to go boom.  You're not going to achieve the same effect with just throwing subcritical (very subcritical; it is by definition impossible to get a chain reaction out of individual nuclei) masses of fissile material at a target really fast.

So yes, you might technically be able to get a few fissile events.  No, it is probably not going to be a practical weapon.

tldr the fire from uranium entering the crew module did more damage then the fission