|
Post by Kerr on Nov 9, 2017 17:47:10 GMT
After the two discussion with Matter Beam I've gathered enough information to get some statistics for an semi-realistic laser system. The first one is a Gyrotron-pumped Fiber Laser: A: 1µm 800MW Gyrotron, Operating temperature 600K, Efficiency 80%, 200MW-M B: Ytterbium Gain Fiber, Operating temperature 900K, Efficiency 90%, 100MW-H C: BBO Cooled Frequency Doubler, Operating temperature 300K, Efficiency 88%^2, 160MW-L We pump in one gigawatt of electricity and get 560MW of nice 250nm, M²=1.5 Laser energy, problem is, you don't want 300K radiators, nor 600K. Let's pump that up to 1200K, (T,hot-T,cold)/T,cold. A: 1 B: 0.35 C: 3 No heat pump is 100% efficient, the highest efficiency available is 80%, which turns the numbers into 1.25, 0.41, 3.75 That means we need a total of 885MW to pump the heat up to neat 1200K, Reducing wall-plug to 29,7%. How much is it gonna mass? Oh well, my Benchmarks say 1kW/kg for Heat pumps, 10kW/kg for the Laser itself, adding up to 985t. That is a specific power of 0.56kW/kg, and it uses cutting edge hypothetical tech, this doesn't look so good.. The second one is a SRF FEL, X: 900MW SRF Klystron, 100K, Efficiency 90%, 100MW-VL Y: 900MW Recovery Linac, 100K, Efficiency 99.9%, x Pumping the heat up to 1200K requires 1375MW of power, which translates into 1375 tons of heat pumps. On the flip it produces 900MW at >1.05 M² and probably > 200nm (Depending if we have a efficient mirror/lens for those frequencies). Specific power is 0.61kW/kg. Overall this is a lot better system. If the FEL is equipped with a 25t Adaptive Optics it will ablate 7mm/s graphite at 100Mm and 615mm at 10Mm per second.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Nov 9, 2017 23:11:51 GMT
The mass and power requirements of the pumps may not be worth the performance. Our current lasers have negligible mass and fairly good efficiency with the questionable metal arc lamps and can operate @ ~2000K. I don't know if triple the efficiency and higher intensity is worth 80 times the mass.
|
|
|
Post by matterbeam on Nov 10, 2017 2:11:31 GMT
After the two discussion with Matter Beam I've gathered enough information to get some statistics for an semi-realistic laser system. The first one is a Gyrotron-pumped Fiber Laser: A: 1µm 800MW Gyrotron, Operating temperature 600K, Efficiency 80%, 200MW-M B: Ytterbium Gain Fiber, Operating temperature 900K, Efficiency 90%, 100MW-H C: BBO Cooled Frequency Doubler, Operating temperature 300K, Efficiency 88%^2, 160MW-L We pump in one gigawatt of electricity and get 560MW of nice 250nm, M²=1.5 Laser energy, problem is, you don't want 300K radiators, nor 600K. Let's pump that up to 1200K, (T,hot-T,cold)/T,cold. A: 1 B: 0.35 C: 3 No heat pump is 100% efficient, the highest efficiency available is 80%, which turns the numbers into 1.25, 0.41, 3.75 That means we need a total of 885MW to pump the heat up to neat 1200K, Reducing wall-plug to 29,7%. How much is it gonna mass? Oh well, my Benchmarks say 1kW/kg for Heat pumps, 10kW/kg for the Laser itself, adding up to 985t. That is a specific power of 0.56kW/kg, and it uses cutting edge hypothetical tech, this doesn't look so good.. The second one is a SRF FEL, X: 900MW SRF Klystron, 100K, Efficiency 90%, 100MW-VL Y: 900MW Recovery Linac, 100K, Efficiency 99.9%, x Pumping the heat up to 1200K requires 1375MW of power, which translates into 1375 tons of heat pumps. On the flip it produces 900MW at >1.05 M² and probably > 200nm (Depending if we have a efficient mirror/lens for those frequencies). Specific power is 0.61kW/kg. Overall this is a lot better system. If the FEL is equipped with a 25t Adaptive Optics it will ablate 7mm/s graphite at 100Mm and 615mm at 10Mm per second. Thoughts? If you are using very high efficiency heat pumps, you might be basing them on Brayton cycle (turbine) pumps. That's a potential for 10kW/kg. Also, I have described some extremely performance waste heat management systems, ranging from droplet radiators to carbon wire loops. These radiators can have a very high kW/kg rating - it might be worthwhile to shift the balance towards less heat pumps and more radiators. A 1mm diameter aluminium wire gets us 1.48m^2/kg. At 900K, it radiates 52.3kW per kg of wire. Combined with the figure of 10kW/kg for the heat pumps, a 900K temperature allows you to reduce the heat pump mass to 26 tons. Radiator mass will be 5 tons. Specific power including radiators is 560MW/131 tons: 4.27kW/kg If you use an even thinner wire (0.1mm) made of lighter material (carbon), you can have 17.39m^2/kg. Even at 600K, you get a decent 121kW/kg out of the wires. Now you only need a heat pump for the frequency doublers. With hollow wires permitting even higher radiator performance, you might get away with 300K radiators for lower power applications. Droplets would have even better area/mass ratios. I see your FEL design, but I don't see the inefficiency that results from converting the electron beam into light. It can impose a 30% efficiency loss or more.
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Nov 10, 2017 5:52:50 GMT
After the two discussion with Matter Beam I've gathered enough information to get some statistics for an semi-realistic laser system. The first one is a Gyrotron-pumped Fiber Laser: A: 1µm 800MW Gyrotron, Operating temperature 600K, Efficiency 80%, 200MW-M B: Ytterbium Gain Fiber, Operating temperature 900K, Efficiency 90%, 100MW-H C: BBO Cooled Frequency Doubler, Operating temperature 300K, Efficiency 88%^2, 160MW-L We pump in one gigawatt of electricity and get 560MW of nice 250nm, M²=1.5 Laser energy, problem is, you don't want 300K radiators, nor 600K. Let's pump that up to 1200K, (T,hot-T,cold)/T,cold. A: 1 B: 0.35 C: 3 No heat pump is 100% efficient, the highest efficiency available is 80%, which turns the numbers into 1.25, 0.41, 3.75 That means we need a total of 885MW to pump the heat up to neat 1200K, Reducing wall-plug to 29,7%. How much is it gonna mass? Oh well, my Benchmarks say 1kW/kg for Heat pumps, 10kW/kg for the Laser itself, adding up to 985t. That is a specific power of 0.56kW/kg, and it uses cutting edge hypothetical tech, this doesn't look so good.. The second one is a SRF FEL, X: 900MW SRF Klystron, 100K, Efficiency 90%, 100MW-VL Y: 900MW Recovery Linac, 100K, Efficiency 99.9%, x Pumping the heat up to 1200K requires 1375MW of power, which translates into 1375 tons of heat pumps. On the flip it produces 900MW at >1.05 M² and probably > 200nm (Depending if we have a efficient mirror/lens for those frequencies). Specific power is 0.61kW/kg. Overall this is a lot better system. If the FEL is equipped with a 25t Adaptive Optics it will ablate 7mm/s graphite at 100Mm and 615mm at 10Mm per second. Thoughts? If you are using very high efficiency heat pumps, you might be basing them on Brayton cycle (turbine) pumps. That's a potential for 10kW/kg. Also, I have described some extremely performance waste heat management systems, ranging from droplet radiators to carbon wire loops. These radiators can have a very high kW/kg rating - it might be worthwhile to shift the balance towards less heat pumps and more radiators. A 1mm diameter aluminium wire gets us 1.48m^2/kg. At 900K, it radiates 52.3kW per kg of wire. Combined with the figure of 10kW/kg for the heat pumps, a 900K temperature allows you to reduce the heat pump mass to 26 tons. Radiator mass will be 5 tons. Specific power including radiators is 560MW/131 tons: 4.27kW/kg If you use an even thinner wire (0.1mm) made of lighter material (carbon), you can have 17.39m^2/kg. Even at 600K, you get a decent 121kW/kg out of the wires. Now you only need a heat pump for the frequency doublers. With hollow wires permitting even higher radiator performance, you might get away with 300K radiators for lower power applications. Droplets would have even better area/mass ratios. I see your FEL design, but I don't see the inefficiency that results from converting the electron beam into light. It can impose a 30% efficiency loss or more. "There's a lot of engineering that goes into getting good efficiency. A design like an energy recovery linac can turn something like 99.9% of the electron beam energy into laser energy (with caveats that it is actually recycling a lot of its energy back into the beam, using energy that would normally be wasted at the beam dump to pump up the fields in the accelerating cavities and use that to accelerate the electron beam). So the problem comes down to efficiently accelerating the electron beam." Luke Campbell, Google+. I'll look into your wire radiator proposal.
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Nov 10, 2017 18:25:52 GMT
matterbeam Oh well, the new benchmarks mark a wall-plug of 60% for FEL, an 100t FEL would produce a 600MW Beam, Heat is pumped up to 500K, and radiated by 10.3t of Carbon Wire radiators. I have the feeling that you've once mentioned 60% efficiency and 10MW/t Input, 6MW/t output for an FEL somewhere? An 3kT Laser system could project 4 tons of TNT/s at distances of 100Mm with spot sizes 2m in diameter using 24m wide lenses, this system would be capable of ablating 42mm graphite per second or if pulsee 101mm at these distances. Bringing Lasers potential back to the elegant ultra long ranged death beams. Working best when large. The quoted performance in my original post could remain as a decent "mid-near" future laser system, where lasers aren't the main dominant weapon, but nice long range long duration and defense weapons. Having 1MW/t specific power an 1GW Laser Fiber 250nm Laser would weight 1000t, radiators with no heat pumps weigh additional 23t. Being able to do the same damage at 17.5Mm.
|
|
|
Post by matterbeam on Nov 11, 2017 1:35:25 GMT
I hate this forum. I've spent an entire hour typing the following reply. It took me six attempts between user verification, losing links when copying, not being able to control-Z and control-a sometimes wiping the entire message. KerrWhat you've done is put together the perfect ingredients for lasers to become a dominant weapon system. High output, low wavelength, high power density. Not an inherently bad thing, but it restricts 'fun' combat. My reference for Gyrotrons is ITER's 170GHz design ( conferences.iaea.org/indico/event/98/session/3/contribution/809/material/slides/1.pdf). It produces close to 1MW for a mass of just 250MW. Look at slide 5. It is 50% efficient, and still achieves 4MW/ton. The improvements listed at the bottom of the pdf suggest 10MW/ton is already possible. However, a shorter wavelength FEL would need more powerful electrons. These need to be accelerated by a longer accelerator, which necessarily cuts into the power density. Frequency doublers and optical converters reduce this requirement somewhat, but I believe looking further into the details of what frequency doublers can do will reveal their limits. A 200nm FEL would need an electron beam 8815 times more powerful without other steps in between. As for the dominance of lasers, a consequence to consider is that if you are able to accelerate electrons to such energies for short wavelength, then particle accelerators are correspondingly more powerful. The ultimate evolution of the latter is the pellet gun. For example, if you can achieve 100MeV/meter or more, you can push tiny projectiles to decent velocities as well. This document has exactly what you need for your other pursuits: lasers.llnl.gov/multimedia/publications/pdfs/etr/1982_01.pdf
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Nov 11, 2017 3:21:20 GMT
I hate this forum. I've spent an entire hour typing the following reply. It took me six attempts between user verification, losing links when copying, not being able to control-Z and control-a sometimes wiping the entire message. I write chunks of my stuff in NPP first, when dealing with non-xenoforo forums.
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Nov 11, 2017 7:38:55 GMT
I hate this forum. I've spent an entire hour typing the following reply. It took me six attempts between user verification, losing links when copying, not being able to control-Z and control-a sometimes wiping the entire message. Kerr What you've done is put together the perfect ingredients for lasers to become a dominant weapon system. High output, low wavelength, high power density. Not an inherently bad thing, but it restricts 'fun' combat. My reference for Gyrotrons is ITER's 170GHz design ( conferences.iaea.org/indico/event/98/session/3/contribution/809/material/slides/1.pdf). It produces close to 1MW for a mass of just 250MW. Look at slide 5. It is 50% efficient, and still achieves 4MW/ton. The improvements listed at the bottom of the pdf suggest 10MW/ton is already possible. However, a shorter wavelength FEL would need more powerful electrons. These need to be accelerated by a longer accelerator, which necessarily cuts into the power density. Frequency doublers and optical converters reduce this requirement somewhat, but I believe looking further into the details of what frequency doublers can do will reveal their limits. A 200nm FEL would need an electron beam 8815 times more powerful without other steps in between. As for the dominance of lasers, a consequence to consider is that if you are able to accelerate electrons to such energies for short wavelength, then particle accelerators are correspondingly more powerful. The ultimate evolution of the latter is the pellet gun. For example, if you can achieve 100MeV/meter or more, you can push tiny projectiles to decent velocities as well. This document has exactly what you need for your other pursuits: lasers.llnl.gov/multimedia/publications/pdfs/etr/1982_01.pdfExactly how does a longer accelerator cut into energy density? I though an accelerator has linear performances. Would you be so kind and explain how pellet guns make combat fun contrary to lasers? At these technological levels you are either shooting your photon lances or multi-megameter/s projectiles. Neither of them seem to support fun combat.
|
|
|
Post by matterbeam on Nov 13, 2017 1:57:27 GMT
I hate this forum. I've spent an entire hour typing the following reply. It took me six attempts between user verification, losing links when copying, not being able to control-Z and control-a sometimes wiping the entire message. Kerr What you've done is put together the perfect ingredients for lasers to become a dominant weapon system. High output, low wavelength, high power density. Not an inherently bad thing, but it restricts 'fun' combat. My reference for Gyrotrons is ITER's 170GHz design ( conferences.iaea.org/indico/event/98/session/3/contribution/809/material/slides/1.pdf). It produces close to 1MW for a mass of just 250MW. Look at slide 5. It is 50% efficient, and still achieves 4MW/ton. The improvements listed at the bottom of the pdf suggest 10MW/ton is already possible. However, a shorter wavelength FEL would need more powerful electrons. These need to be accelerated by a longer accelerator, which necessarily cuts into the power density. Frequency doublers and optical converters reduce this requirement somewhat, but I believe looking further into the details of what frequency doublers can do will reveal their limits. A 200nm FEL would need an electron beam 8815 times more powerful without other steps in between. As for the dominance of lasers, a consequence to consider is that if you are able to accelerate electrons to such energies for short wavelength, then particle accelerators are correspondingly more powerful. The ultimate evolution of the latter is the pellet gun. For example, if you can achieve 100MeV/meter or more, you can push tiny projectiles to decent velocities as well. This document has exactly what you need for your other pursuits: lasers.llnl.gov/multimedia/publications/pdfs/etr/1982_01.pdfExactly how does a longer accelerator cut into energy density? I though an accelerator has linear performances. Would you be so kind and explain how pellet guns make combat fun contrary to lasers? At these technological levels you are either shooting your photon lances or multi-megameter/s projectiles. Neither of them seem to support fun combat. Consider this: A gyrotron needs only a 1 meter long accelerator to produce electrons energetic enough for microwave wavelengths. It has a mass of 1 ton and an output of 1MW. A FEL needs a 100 meter long accelerator to produce electrons energetic enough for X-ray wavelengths. It has a mass for 100 tons and an output of 1MW. The FEL, due to having a much bigger electron accelerator component, ends up having a lower power density. This is assuming that the accelerator components are field limited (realistic) rather than power limited (simplistic). Pellets can be dodged by harder accelerating spaceships. Shooting angles matter even more, because you now have a relative velocity and lateral acceleration component. Lasers instantly hit you. Pellets are interceptable and encourage complex armor schemes. Lasers tend to do continuous damage that dumb down armor to a simple matter of mass, especially at closer ranges where the laser intensities are extreme. Lasers can also be transmitted over long distances by Laser Weapon Webs, while pellet guns need one dedicated space warship per gun. With laser-dominated warfare, you'll have a battlefield composed of remotely controlled, remotely propelled and remotely powered mirror drones at the end of an interplanetary laser weapon web. They'll burn down each other through attrition and war boils down to the military output of each combatant. With kinetics-dominated warfare, you'll have a battlefield full of warships maneuvering hard to dodge incoming fire while lining up predictive shots on targets. For a lot of authors, being able to apply convenient WWII dogfight analogies to that sort of fighting is a big plus.
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Nov 15, 2017 0:31:33 GMT
matterbeam I believe Kerr 's point is that a tactician sitting in the middle of a constellation of spinal gun drones watching a sensor plot as his constellation dances with the enemy battle constellation is hardly 'Star Wars' exciting. At least, for the unwashed, unintellectual plebian masses ;p
|
|
|
Post by matterbeam on Nov 15, 2017 0:57:26 GMT
matterbeam I believe Kerr 's point is that a tactician sitting in the middle of a constellation of spinal gun drones watching a sensor plot as his constellation dances with the enemy battle constellation is hardly 'Star Wars' exciting. At least, for the unwashed, unintellectual plebian masses ;p One vehicle I suggested is the 'pellet fighter'. It uses a smaller pellet gun capable of lower velocities. It approaches targets and uses high maneuverability to evade. If you can catch a spacecraft at 3000km accelerating at 0.1g, then you can dodge up to 300km at 1g and 30km at 10g. This hard-burning fighter wiggles and winds its way up to the target and pops a few rounds into it from practically point blank range. Of course, the best way to counter this fighter is with... another fighter. They can approach each other to very short ranges due to their low velocity guns. Add a bit of human-in-the-seat-to-beat-predication-algorithms flair and you're got the spiralling dogfights and gundam-inspired twitchy combat that can capture the masses.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Nov 15, 2017 1:17:51 GMT
but the ALPHA air combat AI can beat human ace pilots already, nevermind 30 years down the line
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Nov 15, 2017 1:38:18 GMT
matterbeam I believe Kerr 's point is that a tactician sitting in the middle of a constellation of spinal gun drones watching a sensor plot as his constellation dances with the enemy battle constellation is hardly 'Star Wars' exciting. At least, for the unwashed, unintellectual plebian masses ;p One vehicle I suggested is the 'pellet fighter'. It uses a smaller pellet gun capable of lower velocities. It approaches targets and uses high maneuverability to evade. If you can catch a spacecraft at 3000km accelerating at 0.1g, then you can dodge up to 300km at 1g and 30km at 10g. This hard-burning fighter wiggles and winds its way up to the target and pops a few rounds into it from practically point blank range. Of course, the best way to counter this fighter is with... another fighter. They can approach each other to very short ranges due to their low velocity guns. Add a bit of human-in-the-seat-to-beat-predication-algorithms flair and you're got the spiralling dogfights and gundam-inspired twitchy combat that can capture the masses. Uh. The mass of the human, life support system is just unacceptable. As for dodging, fuel endurance is an issue. If my megameter-per-second frag linear accelerator can accurately hit a dinner plate from say, 100 megameters away, you need to be able to continuously evade until within your own effective range of my ship. It just doesn't seem feasible.
|
|
|
Post by matterbeam on Nov 15, 2017 10:40:39 GMT
One vehicle I suggested is the 'pellet fighter'. It uses a smaller pellet gun capable of lower velocities. It approaches targets and uses high maneuverability to evade. If you can catch a spacecraft at 3000km accelerating at 0.1g, then you can dodge up to 300km at 1g and 30km at 10g. This hard-burning fighter wiggles and winds its way up to the target and pops a few rounds into it from practically point blank range. Of course, the best way to counter this fighter is with... another fighter. They can approach each other to very short ranges due to their low velocity guns. Add a bit of human-in-the-seat-to-beat-predication-algorithms flair and you're got the spiralling dogfights and gundam-inspired twitchy combat that can capture the masses. Uh. The mass of the human, life support system is just unacceptable. As for dodging, fuel endurance is an issue. If my megameter-per-second frag linear accelerator can accurately hit a dinner plate from say, 100 megameters away, you need to be able to continuously evade until within your own effective range of my ship. It just doesn't seem feasible. Is it really? A closed cockpit, air recyclers and life support for a week might end up being less than a ton. We don't need the fully recyclable closed life support systems on spacecraft designed to make interplanetary voyages. If the spacecraft's total dr mass is 100 tons, then we've added a 1% mass penalty for a perhaps significant gain in total effectiveness. The fuel endurance is an issue, but it is relative. You only need to dodge after each shot, which might substantially reduce the amount of time spend thrusting. Rapid approaches also reduce the total time required for dodging. Agreed, it will be easier to do in settings where high-energy propulsion is widely available and compact, such as inertially confined fusion schemes. If the fighter is 2m wide and is facing 1000km/s rounds while approaching at 10km/s, it needs the following acceleration rates: If we set the upper limit for acceleration at 10G, then the 'fighter' can approach up to a distance of 200km while being 100% certain to dodge all incoming projectiles. It can approach up to 150km if it dodged by only half its width. The last row (1000km) is calculated from a starting point of 2000km. The total deltaV required for dodging with either option is 2559m/s@100% and 1280m/s@50% up to a closest approach of 200km. If the closing velocity is increased, deltaV requirement is reduced but acceleration remains the same. If the fighter is made smaller, it can approach closer. If the projectile velocity is decreased to 100km/s (a fast coilgun), the closest approach at 10G limit is only 20km. That's practically visual range, at the same distance as above of 200km, the 100% dodging deltaV is 1m/s per shot.
|
|
|
Post by defacto on Nov 15, 2017 14:03:57 GMT
Uh. The mass of the human, life support system is just unacceptable. As for dodging, fuel endurance is an issue. If my megameter-per-second frag linear accelerator can accurately hit a dinner plate from say, 100 megameters away, you need to be able to continuously evade until within your own effective range of my ship. It just doesn't seem feasible. Is it really? A closed cockpit, air recyclers and life support for a week might end up being less than a ton. We don't need the fully recyclable closed life support systems on spacecraft designed to make interplanetary voyages. If the spacecraft's total dr mass is 100 tons, then we've added a 1% mass penalty for a perhaps significant gain in total effectiveness. The fuel endurance is an issue, but it is relative. You only need to dodge after each shot, which might substantially reduce the amount of time spend thrusting. Rapid approaches also reduce the total time required for dodging. Agreed, it will be easier to do in settings where high-energy propulsion is widely available and compact, such as inertially confined fusion schemes. If we set the upper limit for acceleration at 10G, then the 'fighter' can approach up to a distance of 200km while being 100% certain to dodge all incoming projectiles. It can approach up to 150km if it dodged by only half its width. The last row (1000km) is calculated from a starting point of 2000km. The total deltaV required for dodging with either option is 2559m/s@100% and 1280m/s@50% up to a closest approach of 200km. If the closing velocity is increased, deltaV requirement is reduced but acceleration remains the same. If the fighter is made smaller, it can approach closer. If the projectile velocity is decreased to 100km/s (a fast coilgun), the closest approach at 10G limit is only 20km. That's practically visual range, at the same distance as above of 200km, the 100% dodging deltaV is 1m/s per shot. I'm sorry for pulling this offtopic (I seem to be doing this a lot on this forum, sorry if I'm annoying), but this analysis seems to be a bit too simple. The fighter might just be 2 meters wide, but it needs to escape the kill zone of the warhead, which might be a lot larger. How large does a Mm/s fragment need to be to kill the fighter? How large is the warhead? How many shots can be fired before the fighter is in range? All of this affects the optimal spread pattern of the warhead. Don't forget that you not only need the ability to change your velocity vector rapidly, you need to be able to change your acceleration vector rapidly too. Extremely rapidly, if we're discussing situations where the time to target is less than 1 second. This either means some quick way to change your orientation or powerful translation thrusters. Either way is probably going to be pretty heavy. (oh, and also, it means that it has to be two meters in every dimension, not just a facing direction) Looking at the dv expenditures in your table, it might be possible that the fighter simply never will get into range if enemy fire forces it to run off in a direction. Unless it is going to turn around and thrust back between shots, which will further increase dv expenditure. Finally, this dodging can be accomplished by just drunkwalking. The targeting computers are probably going to 'drunk-aim' on various expected future positions anyways, so it's not like a hotshot fighter pilot is going to outsmart the targeting in order to get close. These 'dogfights' would probably just consist of automated drones spraying pellets widely in the general expected position of the enemy while drunkwalking. Oh, and all of this doesn't take into accounts things like sensor data processing time, engine thrust changes not being immediate... Is armour design for resisting lasers really less complex than kinetic armour if you include different power levels and frequencies? Many designs that I've seen here seems just as complex as antikinetics. So in the end, I basically don't see how pellet fighters would be possible, assuming high-performance fragcoilguns. And if they would be possible, there is zero reason to not have them be unmanned drones that drunkwalk instead of space fighters. Sorry for not posting about lasers in a laser thread!
|
|