Reply to topic  [ 92 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A) 
Author Message

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:14 am
Posts: 43
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
Outsider Terran Heavy laser.
Lets say the Turret has a 4m wide lens and wavelength of 2.23e-7 m.
Laser at 50,000km does 1 damage and a beam radius of 3.4m.


Increase emitter/lens width to 50m by making it a spinal mounted gun and not a turret weapon while its total energy output is exactly the same.

Laser now does 1 damage at 625,000KM and a beam radius of 3.4m.

That outranges everything but yes, its only 1 damage.

50m wide emitter gives it 4-7 damage at 125,000km.
Only Waveloom, Loroi Plasma Pulse Cannon, and Historian Plasma Array are hitting harder at that range.

Particle/Plasma weapons are better because they are efficient in space/energy/heat.
The Tempest has 8 pulse cannons + other armament.
Singe Spinal mounted Laser simply doesn't keep up even when its up gunned.

Tempest 8 pulse cannons total
16-160 damage at 120,000km
0-32 at 400,000km

Terran Spinal mounted Laser thats 6X more powerful then the single laser in a laser turret using a 50m wide Lens/Emitter.
6 damage at 625,000km
18-25 at 250,000km
24-42 damage at 125,000km

What a spinal mounted laser does do is outrange particle weapons and partly ignore shields.

Yes its completely possible BTW, even just making an array of 6 normal Terran heavy lasers in a spinal mount so they fire at the same time and have a beam convergence on target will vastly increase the range as long as they all emit the same wavelength.

Ithekro wrote:
The Outsider's Terran's heavy lasers have a range of 50,000 km and do relatively pathetic damage much past 20,000 km. These are main battery weapons. However, aside from the armor piercing qualities, the heavy laser is still more effective than the Mjolnir Cannon starting at 30,000 km. And while the heavy mass drivers will do more damage than either beam weapon, its effective range against more advanced races is only about up to 4,000 km.

Loroi's more advanced laser autocannons can fire out to 120,000 km and still can only do pathetic anti-ship damage past 20,000 km. Theirs are designed for defensive work, have a greater rate of fire than the Terran models, and are considered old fashioned by other local powers.

Effective combat ranges for Loroi blasters seems to be 40,000-50,000 km or less, even though they have some with a range up 300,000 km. The super heavy blaster can reach out to 400,000 km, but its effective range drops off after 90,000 km.
(Umiak blasters, while mentioned, don't seem to be as common on their ships verse the plasma focus types. But their blasters have greater combat ranges than most the Loroi blaster, their regular guns drop off slightly later than Loroi weapons, but don't have the overall range advantage.

Umiak Plasma focus seems to have an effective combat range of around 60,000 km aide from their early, shorter ranged Type 4, and their newer Type 7 extending that back out to 120,000 km
Loroi pulse cannon's variable yield is problematic, but their damage output doesn't drop off until past 90,000 km. Becoming far less effective at 250,000 - 300,000 km
The Historians pulsed array is much more versatile, and given the modes can be effective out to 300,000 km. With it being downright brutal at Terran's weapon's ranges.


Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:23 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 5:22 pm
Posts: 369
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
MBehave wrote:
Well its not the length thats important its the width of the Emitter.

I was describing the length of laser loop required to make a Xaser using a Free Electron Laser, the most practical means we would have using modern of near future technology to build such a weapon. The length doesn't determine range. IIRC it determines light frequency, although I'm not certain on that.

My point, such as it is, was that I made the suggestion that humanity should look into building spinal xasers four years ago as a response to their pitiful weapon situation, and now its being looked at again.

_________________
If every cloud had a silver lining, there would be a lot more plane crashes.


Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:36 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:14 am
Posts: 43
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
Well you appear to be right.
Effectively duct taping 6 heavy lasers together would produce a far better weapon range/damage if they acted as a single laser with matched wavelengths and converged on target.
Not as good as having a dedicated Emitter/Lens but vastly better then particle weapon spinal mount.
100000km+ increase in range seems reasonable.
RedDwarfIV wrote:
MBehave wrote:
Well its not the length thats important its the width of the Emitter.

I was describing the length of laser loop required to make a Xaser using a Free Electron Laser, the most practical means we would have using modern of near future technology to build such a weapon. The length doesn't determine range. IIRC it determines light frequency, although I'm not certain on that.

My point, such as it is, was that I made the suggestion that humanity should look into building spinal xasers four years ago as a response to their pitiful weapon situation, and now its being looked at again.


Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:57 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 5:22 pm
Posts: 369
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
MBehave wrote:
Well you appear to be right.
Effectively duct taping 6 heavy lasers together would produce a far better weapon range/damage if they acted as a single laser with matched wavelengths and converged on target.
Not as good as having a dedicated Emitter/Lens but vastly better then particle weapon spinal mount.

With the added bonus of not being a single point of failure that could mission-kill the vessel. Losing one of the six laser mounts would be less impactful than losing one big gun.

_________________
If every cloud had a silver lining, there would be a lot more plane crashes.


Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:06 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:14 am
Posts: 43
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
If the Emitter was actually millions of independent emitters/lens and each lens was controlled by dielectric substrate it would be very simple and reliable in function compared to mechanical aiming. Such a system real advantage is not its reduced chance of getting knocked out by a single hit which is a bonus, it could split beams up for independent targeting for closer range combat from just hitting multiple points on a larger ship to point defense where each beam only does 1 damage at 5000km but it fires 54 different beams assuming output equal to 6 heavy lasers.

Would even work for the normal point defense lasers.
Terran Heavy Cruiser has 16 point defense lasers each capable of 1-2damage at 5000km.
If it had say 4 arrays equal to 4 lasers each it would have vastly increased range for a longer single pulse and still have the capacity to split the beams into 4 or even more(super close) as a last ditch defensive effort.

I imagine it would look like compound eyes/fresnel strips on the hull and such versions would have greater range then a turret gun tube type even at the same output level.
Only problem is the coverage would be worse from some angles, example if they were on mounted slanted 45 degree forward on top/bottom/left/right ship has coverage forward in 180 degrees but no rear coverage.

Divisible Intelligent Battle System
DIBS
"Incoming missiles!"
"I got DIBS on it!"

Seriously through a Terran Battle Cruiser with a spinal mounted DIBS with Point defense DIBS could take out many more Torpedoes/Missiles/Fighters while even the point defense dibs could be fired in single pulses so each of the 4 has longer range then a normal heavy laser while also having longer range as 4 beams in point defense due to total emitter size not a factor because it needs to fit on a turret.

RedDwarfIV wrote:
MBehave wrote:
Well you appear to be right.
Effectively duct taping 6 heavy lasers together would produce a far better weapon range/damage if they acted as a single laser with matched wavelengths and converged on target.
Not as good as having a dedicated Emitter/Lens but vastly better then particle weapon spinal mount.

With the added bonus of not being a single point of failure that could mission-kill the vessel. Losing one of the six laser mounts would be less impactful than losing one big gun.


Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:21 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2019 8:55 pm
Posts: 56
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
It would still have the spinal mount problem and the relative low mobility of Earth engine and acceleration dampening field issues inherent in Earth ship design at the moment.

Also how can one be sure the beam would defuse over the distances to be less useful than expected?

At 650,000 km (over two light-seconds) they will have to lead by a bit. Not only it their targeting visual data more that two seconds out of date, but it will take more than two seconds for the beam to reach where you might expect the target to be. While that is less time than naval artillery fire calculations from ship to ship combat between cruisers or battleships, the spacecraft are moving a lot faster. With the more advanced species out accelerating the Terrain ship by multiple times.

But the spinal mounting and likely the size such a weapon would need to be are probably the reasons such a weapon is not implemented on Terran ships. It might also generate too much waste heat to be practical for 22nd century Earth.


Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:10 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 5:22 pm
Posts: 369
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
Ithekro wrote:
It would still have the spinal mount problem and the relative low mobility of Earth engine and acceleration dampening field issues inherent in Earth ship design at the moment.

Also how can one be sure the beam would defuse over the distances to be less useful than expected?

At 650,000 km (over two light-seconds) they will have to lead by a bit. Not only it their targeting visual data more that two seconds out of date, but it will take more than two seconds for the beam to reach where you might expect the target to be. While that is less time than naval artillery fire calculations from ship to ship combat between cruisers or battleships, the spacecraft are moving a lot faster. With the more advanced species out accelerating the Terrain ship by multiple times.

But the spinal mounting and likely the size such a weapon would need to be are probably the reasons such a weapon is not implemented on Terran ships. It might also generate too much waste heat to be practical for 22nd century Earth.

We're aware that there are still a lot of issues with Terran warships. This is about turning them from "completely useless" to "glass cannon".

I don't think a spinal mount of comparable power to the combined laser mounts of a normal Terran battlecruiser would generate much more heat. It'll be more concentrated, so that might overwhelm a cooling system, but I don't think overall heat output is the issue.

_________________
If every cloud had a silver lining, there would be a lot more plane crashes.


Thu Oct 10, 2019 4:38 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:14 am
Posts: 43
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
Its using the same exact power but over a wider area meaning the lower peak energy density through the lens and perhaps even power cables. No reason it should produce more heat and i would even argue it should produce less waste heat and be easier to manage.

Terran BattleCruiser already has a spinal mounted Particle Cannon.(thats utterly crap compared to a single heavy laser)
An laser array as I suggested before doesn't need to be pointed directly at the target depending on how its made it could have almost 180 angle of fire but suffer divergence problems as greater angle equates to an effectively smaller lens. Normal 20 degrees in single beam mode seems acceptable for both to not reduce the lasers performance and allow the ship a good targeting cone without having to refocus the ship against multiple targets.

Tempest main engines can burn at 30g, its thrusters only provide 0.1g, with mains it takes 4.7 seconds to turn 90 degrees, this is from information provided by Arioch.
If its facing directly on its hit, if its turned to the side and providing random thrust hits/misses will be up to luck of the targeting/evasion computers.

Heavy Lasers have a ROF of 2/3 so every 90 seconds.
If a fleet is moving towards a Terran ship at 500km/s it can fire 5 times before normal particle weapons are in range.
This is 5 mins full thrust at 24g so I think that a a reasonable closing rate.
Need to ask Arioch how space battles play out, but I don't think fleets are going to close so fast they can't break contact besides running through each other.

Terran ships have poor armour, no shields and far less total firepower.
If you swapped out the Lasers onto Umiak/Loroi ships over their own weapons they would lose against the normally equipped mirror fleet.
As RedDwarfIV said its not about winning its having the capability of fighting back, in this case its completely within the technical confines of the outsider universe tech base.


Ithekro wrote:
It would still have the spinal mount problem and the relative low mobility of Earth engine and acceleration dampening field issues inherent in Earth ship design at the moment.

Also how can one be sure the beam would defuse over the distances to be less useful than expected?

At 650,000 km (over two light-seconds) they will have to lead by a bit. Not only it their targeting visual data more that two seconds out of date, but it will take more than two seconds for the beam to reach where you might expect the target to be. While that is less time than naval artillery fire calculations from ship to ship combat between cruisers or battleships, the spacecraft are moving a lot faster. With the more advanced species out accelerating the Terrain ship by multiple times.

But the spinal mounting and likely the size such a weapon would need to be are probably the reasons such a weapon is not implemented on Terran ships. It might also generate too much waste heat to be practical for 22nd century Earth.


Thu Oct 10, 2019 8:54 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:27 pm
Posts: 520
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
You should consider that in Outsider weapon ranges are given at which the combatants can expect to score a damaging hit.
That means that a slow moving ship with equally poor defenses should be in danger of hits from further away.


Thu Oct 10, 2019 10:01 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:14 am
Posts: 43
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
Don't believe thats correct, how do you account all the light speed particle weapons having different effective ranges if its only accuracy?


Werra wrote:
You should consider that in Outsider weapon ranges are given at which the combatants can expect to score a damaging hit.
That means that a slow moving ship with equally poor defenses should be in danger of hits from further away.


Thu Oct 10, 2019 12:25 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:27 pm
Posts: 520
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
Insider on weapons wrote:
The Loroi heavy beam weapons such as the pulse cannon and superheavy blaster can cause damage out to this distance; Umiak heavy beam weapons can score a hit at this distance, but need to be closer to do significant damage.

If damage falls off with distance, then a softer target needs to be further away to survive a hit.
And since their targeting is good enough to hit targets at higher speeds, lower speed should mean more hits, or same number of hits at greater range.


Thu Oct 10, 2019 1:00 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:14 am
Posts: 43
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
That quote proves my point...
at 400000km none of the ships in outsider over 350m can really dodge a light speed weapon.
also
Quote:
I'm skeptical about the feasibility of accurately focusing a beam from turret aboard an accelerating, maneuvering ship against a target 300,000 km away. I would think you'd have to use a fixed spinal mount, and point the whole ship at the target.

Even today's mechanical telescope tracking mechanisms are more accurate than what would be required to successfully paint a target at the distances we're talking about. A large turret on a half-million ton starship seems like a pretty stable platform. But in any case, if that accuracy seems hard to achieve for a turret mounted weapon, I don't think pointing the whole half-million tons of starship to that same accuracy is going to be any easier.



Weapon ranges as given appear to be range before dispersion causes ineffectiveness.
Terran battlecruiser(375m) has 80 armour a Loroi Light cruiser(380m) has 140 armour.
Inside effective ranges shields will render low damage hits ignoreable but I don't think their is any data on how they actually work, also in this case Lasers are 50% shield penetrating, so assuming you do 2 damage at target they will take at least 1 damage.

Werra wrote:
Insider on weapons wrote:
The Loroi heavy beam weapons such as the pulse cannon and superheavy blaster can cause damage out to this distance; Umiak heavy beam weapons can score a hit at this distance, but need to be closer to do significant damage.

If damage falls off with distance, then a softer target needs to be further away to survive a hit.
And since their targeting is good enough to hit targets at higher speeds, lower speed should mean more hits, or same number of hits at greater range.


Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:19 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 5:22 pm
Posts: 369
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
What acceleration would Terran ships be capable of if they had more effective inertial compensators?

_________________
If every cloud had a silver lining, there would be a lot more plane crashes.


Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:23 am
Profile

Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:59 pm
Posts: 9
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
I would imagine it would be the same, wouldn't it? There's no point in overbuilding the engines of a ship for acceleration the ship or its crew can't handle; the volume, mass and reactor fuel used up by larger engines is best used elsewhere.

I'm assuming you mean "better inertial compensators, all other variables unchanged" in your post. Otherwise, I think the answer would be 'as fast as the new compensators can handle'.


Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:56 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 5:22 pm
Posts: 369
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
Incinerator wrote:
I would imagine it would be the same, wouldn't it? There's no point in overbuilding the engines of a ship for acceleration the ship or its crew can't handle; the volume, mass and reactor fuel used up by larger engines is best used elsewhere.

I'm assuming you mean "better inertial compensators, all other variables unchanged" in your post. Otherwise, I think the answer would be 'as fast as the new compensators can handle'.

I was thinking the latter, based on Arioch once saying that Terran vessels' acceleration was more limited by their compensators than by fusion drives. Implying that if they had better compensators, they could build faster vessels without developing better engine technology.

_________________
If every cloud had a silver lining, there would be a lot more plane crashes.


Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:11 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 9:45 am
Posts: 256
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
RedDwarfIV wrote:
I was thinking the latter, based on Arioch once saying that Terran vessels' acceleration was more limited by their compensators than by fusion drives. Implying that if they had better compensators, they could build faster vessels without developing better engine technology.


Incorrect:

Arioch wrote:
Mr.Tucker wrote:
This question may have been asked before, but : what is the chief limitation for Terran ships achieving higher acceleration? Is is the drive technology or the inertial dampener technology? Or a combination of both?

Drive technology.


Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 5:22 pm
Posts: 369
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
Mr.Tucker wrote:
RedDwarfIV wrote:
I was thinking the latter, based on Arioch once saying that Terran vessels' acceleration was more limited by their compensators than by fusion drives. Implying that if they had better compensators, they could build faster vessels without developing better engine technology.


Incorrect:

Arioch wrote:
Mr.Tucker wrote:
This question may have been asked before, but : what is the chief limitation for Terran ships achieving higher acceleration? Is is the drive technology or the inertial dampener technology? Or a combination of both?

Drive technology.

I stand corrected.

_________________
If every cloud had a silver lining, there would be a lot more plane crashes.


Sun Oct 13, 2019 3:46 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 92 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.