|
Post by EshaNas on Nov 2, 2017 8:06:58 GMT
. EshaNas : Watch out for how you scale the drive power! We already had nuclear thermal rockets with gigawatts of power output in the 70s (Project Timberwind, Rover). Making your advanced antimatter beam core engines less powerful than that would be quite weird. As in using some of the antimatter beam core itself tie into power production? I had, admittedly, barely touched that.
|
|
|
Post by EshaNas on Nov 1, 2017 15:16:43 GMT
In my case, I have antimatter beam core (drive) vessels with fission reactors in the MW range; formed out of a culture that wanted to zip around fast and not much else - transports for the most part; with automated ion drive probes and lesser fission engine (though up to gas cores) for 'cargo', whatever that may be. So we have zip cans running around that for some reason are now armed and shooting at each other, but their reactor tech throws out anything but gunpowder weapons and missiles for the most part, right? If I understand correctly you want an reason Why you have AM Beam Core but use chem missiles and chemical guns? Not really, just what would work thereof. However, I am close enough to slapping a few Bushmasters or somesuch, much like BSG did, and calling it a day, compared to the problems and uncertainties that this great thread has crunched many times over.
|
|
|
Post by EshaNas on Nov 1, 2017 14:53:48 GMT
In my case, I have antimatter beam core (drive) vessels with fission reactors in the MW range; formed out of a culture that wanted to zip around fast and not much else - transports for the most part; with automated ion drive probes and lesser fission engine (though up to gas cores) for 'cargo', whatever that may be. So we have zip cans running around that for some reason are now armed and shooting at each other, but their reactor tech throws out anything but gunpowder weapons and missiles for the most part, right?
|
|
|
Post by EshaNas on Oct 29, 2017 4:30:54 GMT
All off these qualms is why I'm leaning back towards missiles.
Think of it this way: if we absolutely needed a weapon in space *now*, for whatever reason, we're stuck with either huge laserdrones, missile swarms, BEAR neutron beam drones and the like, or gunpowder. And of all those, the missile swarm seems the most versatile and implementable enmasse.
This will, of course, change with time and new technology, but that thereof becomes a question of mathematics clashing with the theoretical.
|
|
|
Post by EshaNas on Oct 28, 2017 8:03:46 GMT
So a pellet gun is a very efficient coil gun?
I can dig it.
|
|
|
Post by EshaNas on Oct 27, 2017 10:12:25 GMT
Looking back at this,
Lasers require meter-huge mirrors, energy, and heat management systems. [Though haven't optical phased lasers become a thing?] Particle weapons require huge amounts of energy and current, long length or huge mass depending on their configuration, and have a relatively shorter range than lasers. Coilguns and railguns require huge amounts of energy and are relatively fragile and violate on their own, massive recoil, bracing and efficiency problems. Bullets require gunpowder mass and casings, are slow, and impart recoil. Missiles are massive, but you can just throw them off your ship, and if they're just impact missiles then most of that mass can be for thrusters, remass, and a guidance system; their mass may not be more than a crew-member or two.
There's no perfect weapon - something that won't waste your d/v or eat into your power or mass, and everything really relies on what tech you have. In my case I have antimatter engines but rather normal fission reactors; thus I can throw about some mass, making missiles, possibly, the best weapon on hand....
|
|
|
Post by EshaNas on Oct 21, 2017 17:35:56 GMT
And then these grand cruisers arrive at Trappist 1, a bastion of blasted rocks orbiting a young hot star, instead of other, more mature and stable (and even G class stars)...why?
|
|
|
Post by EshaNas on Oct 15, 2017 13:29:40 GMT
If the solar system is relatively sparse yet filled with interplanetary powers -as I hold it to may be one day- fighting over assets might ensure without the destruction of the assets due to their relative cost. These assets may, realistically, be naught more than a vulcanoid asteroid or a antimatter facility or some Dihydrogen monoxide extraction facility, especially in the Inner System, valuable and costly enough that throwing men to fight over it is more reasonable than 'blowing it up'. This can extend to spacecraft and boarding actions - would a poorer power really blow up one of their few rapid-reaction, high D/v interplanetary cruisers when they can suffer a defeat now, utilize all the propaganda imagery from it, and possibly in a future action - peaceful or not - re-obtain that asset?
And of course if for some reason you have thousands or millions of people living in artificial habitats, the potential for armed conflict increases thereof. The spats between princes are the same that emerge between two cottage neighbors, the princes just have more armed men to throw at the other.
Align this with the common, modern trend of making one infantryman the equivalent of 10 or 100 grunts-in-fatigues, I could see a few number of space infantry. Their role of course is very specialized or at the least they are not numerous....
Also, remember to use frangible ammunition.
Of course, if you have a rich and accessible solar system where resources come in droves then assets become a lot more replaceable with the tactics thereof.
|
|
|
Post by EshaNas on Aug 30, 2017 0:28:38 GMT
Neutron Particle Beam Turrets, maybe.
|
|
|
Post by EshaNas on Aug 27, 2017 12:53:02 GMT
Missiles add too much mass and are too slow. Lasers radiate too much waste heat and scale terribly with fission reactors. (Fusion might be a whole 'nother ballpark). So I'm going with EM weapons; sniper railguns, yo. I'm sure lasers and missiles have their uses, but the EM weaponry seems like a safe, general purpose workhorse that'll get the job done more often than not.
|
|
|
Post by EshaNas on Aug 10, 2017 1:05:00 GMT
Will any of these designs grace the workshop? Or is it impossible and has to be done manually still?
|
|
|
Post by EshaNas on Aug 1, 2017 17:00:26 GMT
Considering that in canon mankind fled earth in beanstalks, which are not possible now even if we master graphenes or carbon nanotubes, some nanotube magic duct tape is at the least expected.... I thought they left Earth using skyhooks. I just checked. They indeed have six 'supersonic skyhooks', my bad.
|
|
|
Post by EshaNas on Jul 6, 2017 15:13:37 GMT
Considering that in canon mankind fled earth in beanstalks, which are not possible now even if we master graphenes or carbon nanotubes, some nanotube magic duct tape is at the least expected....
|
|
|
Post by EshaNas on Jun 28, 2017 8:52:04 GMT
What are you trying to do? Mostly just add some of the mods people here have made like planet skins, newer engines, hull materials.
|
|
|
Post by EshaNas on Jun 28, 2017 5:15:31 GMT
As the title says, how do you mod the game? I'm stuck looking at txt files and seeing no change even with a simple copy-paste, which also looks like nothing else in the vanilla files. What gives? I've searched the forum and all I found was basically 'Let's hope a modding guide comes soon'. Any help possible? If so, can we sticky the way how so others won't be left out in the dark?
|
|