All of this leads me to suspect that CoaDE is simply not sufficient for simulating real space combat -- we'd probably see largely automated ships fighting with lasers at translunar ranges, cooking systems and crew slowly until one side surrenders.
Realistic missiles would almost always be too slow to cross the kill-zone of laser countermeasures... really the only non-laser combat looks like it'll be Q-ships and similar surprise attacks from supposedly allied or civilian vessels. Maaaaybe stealth missiles would be a thing, with the idea being not so much to hide the existence of the missile, rather just make it hard to target until it gets close enough for the neutron flux to be fatal.
Other nuclear powers will have to respond and improve or expand their arsenals to compensate for the defenses, or they risk a situation where their opponent could conceivably win a nuclear war. It's not really a place you'd want to go to.
The Pentagon’s under secretary of defense for research and engineering wants to bring particle-beam weapons back into vogue.
A type of directed-energy weapon, neutral particle beam accelerators were a key component of the Reagan administration’s Strategic Defense Initiative of the late-1980s before falling out of favor. Despite some exploratory programs in the mid-1990s, the U.S. Defense Department (DOD) has not fully exploited this technology, says Michael Griffin.
Speaking at the Booz Allen Hamilton/Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments Directed Energy Summit in Washington on March 21, Griffin announced that he intends to expand the range of directed energy weapons the department pursues, to include technologies pioneered in the 1980s and 1990s.
“Directed energy is more than just big lasers,” Griffin says, while specifically calling out particle-beam devices that accelerate atomic and subatomic particles close to the speed of light. When weaponized, those particles are directed toward a target, which overheats and breaks down through mass bombardment.
“In the heyday of directed energy, we were working on high-power microwaves, several flavors of lasers, and neutral particle beam weapons. Each of these systems has its own advantages and disadvantages,” he said.
Griffin has been charged with shaping the DOD’s technology strategy and says his mission is to restore the technological advantage to the U.S. after years of erosion.
Having served under the first three directors of the former Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (now the Missile Defense Agency), Griffin’s approach to his new role is shaped by years of cutting-edge work on technologies that had previously been considered science fiction.
“We won’t win in a man-to-man fight. We need to have the technological leverage,” Griffin says. “We should not lose our way with the other technologies that were pioneered in the late-1980s and early-1990s and now stand available for renewed effort.”
Griffin says the DOD dropped the ball with directed energy development. But that is now changing as the world enters a new era of “superpower competition,” in which China and Russia seek to undermine the U.S.’s position. He says the department is ready to “put its money where its mouth is” and will identify 10 core technologies for greater investment. One of those is light-speed directed energy weapons for kinetic and non-lethal effects, including high-power microwave energy weapons.
Griffin is uneasy with the pace of technology development overseas, particularly in China, saying the U.S. has fallen behind in some areas. He encourages the U.S. scientific and industrial community to “work harder and run faster” to regain lost ground.
During his presentation, Griffin addressed several others issues, including the department’s choice of lasers. He recalls that within hours of assuming office in February, factions within the military scientific community began lobbying him about whether to back the diode-pumped alkali laser (DPAL) championed by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory or the fiber beam-combining type being pursued by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Lincoln Laboratory. Both sides want continued funding.
Griffin says the military should continue to pursue both types, since they each continue to increase in power and efficiency.
“I’ve looked at both and find them both promising,” he says. “I’d urge us to keep a lot of arrows in our quiver as we go forward.”
On laser weapons for boost-phase missile defense, Griffin says that technology is still a long way from delivering operational capability. Nearer-term, he says there may be opportunities to use air-launched interceptors to destroy threatening missiles as they ascend through the atmosphere. This could require the U.S. to maintain airborne patrols that can rapidly respond to threats around nations such as North Korea or Iran.
“I’m concerned about exactly how high you have to be in the atmosphere to have a laser beam with sufficient intensity to score a kill at a reasonable range. Some say you can, some say you can’t. The jury is still out,” he explains. “I’m not uninterested in boost-phase directed energy. It’s just not right here, right now.”
In an apparent signal to the department, Griffin says the U.S. does not have to go down this path alone, and there are opportunities to collaborate with allies and partners on directed energy programs, with the right authorizations and approvals.
“We want to take advantage of the brainpower that our traditional allies and partners can offer in the development of these technologies,” he says. “Where there are opportunities, I’ll be looking for careful and measured, but very real, cooperation. In the long run, that will benefit us.”
SDI is coming back effectively and there will be some amazing new technologies coming in the 6-10 years!
I mean there's also UCLR Swift, a 622 mm long, 127 mm diameter nuclear shell, weighing in at 43.5 kg. It says it had a 190 ton initial fission explosion but a 1970's design could do a kiloton. Of the W82 that was a 155mm shell that had a yield of 2 kilotons.
Seriously great design and lore! I suppose the ships come from the Anglo-sphere given the RR powerplants? I would suppose for a more US centric design would include GE reactors, Lockmart fusion drives, General Atomics Drones/Railguns, etc
The setting I'm writing in uses a sort of hybrid system. Interstellar travel is accomplished using Visser non-rotating wormholes on branching space/time networks. I was originally setting myself a D/V budget of 3000km/sec but as I wrote I realized that this was actually pretty inadequate. The D/V budget is a matter of endurance. Ships like Morokweng need to be able to operate for cruises of many months with minimal support.
But for what do you need so much Dv for? You still have to replenish your food and other vital ressources every few months. Most of the time you won't cruise around at dozens to hudred kilometers per second in the system. Creating Stable orbits cost few dozens km/s at most. Though if you have wormholes nanotech should be advanced and cheap enough to generate p-B11 out of Seawater and borax at prices similar to tap water.
I mean having so much dV you can make a constant acceleration round trip from Earth to mars in 4 days or make it pluto in a couple of weeks.
1.36 km long. About 144 thousand tons. Roughly 914 meters across from the tips of her radiators. More carbon than steel in there by a very long shot. The Crater class Drone Tenders are the heavy hitters of the Systems commonwealth. You like?
Yes it's quite the ship! Could you post the design or the page with all the components listed?
Try validating files in Steam (right click > properties > local files). It will replace files under the steamapps directory that don't match the official build, but nothing under appdata (ie. designs & mods should be fine).
I've tried that too. I wonder if its related to the old NTR crash bug because this was after I was messing with them.
The game is now crashing on start for no apparent reason, any tips/help appreciated.
Any mods, user designs, or steam workshop items might be causing this?
Debug procedure is probably to backup everything elsewhere, remove it, and make sure it doesn't crash as the base game. Then start adding it back until you isolate which one is causing this. (Edit: I'd start removing the most recent ones only, and/or do a binary search rather than add one at a time.)
I thought I removed the user design that was causing the issue but it was still crashing. I want to try to avoid deleting everything with a reinstall.