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

Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:10 am
Posts: 347
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
Quote:
I get ~50m diameter at 50km with 0.057 beam angle.

Right, I think I got crossed up and thought you were proposing that it was dangerous when the beam was dispersed over a 50km wide area, instead of being detonated at 50km. This comes from the idea that I recall being a starting point but I think we've wandered from, that a cassaba howitzer based firing chamber was a reasonable competitor weapon. If you can get your bombs up within 50km then yes it's probably an effective blast, but as I noted in my last post the combatants apparently already use shaped blasts to extend the kill range of their torpedoes, so it's not a very special trick.

However, in my experience divergence angle in these kinds of contexts is measured as angle from the center of the cone to the outside, not angle from far sides of the cone. That would make this a ~50 meter radius, not diameter. I was not able to find a source for the 0.057 beam divergence CHs that was perfectly explicit on this distinction, so I did my math on what I understand to be the default. So all other things being equal you should be getting intensities four times higher than I am.

However, 314000000m^2 is the area of a 10km radius circle, not a 50km or 25km one.

With a 50km radius area of effect, other assumptions permitted, I end up with the surface of the tempest absorbing a total of 17 points of damage, not 429.

Quote:
112500m2*1131.53MJ
127237500MJ of energy delivered to the tempest on a top down blast at 50000km
It hits with 15.9 times the energy at 50000km then the Terran GWS.


Perhaps, but you already did the math to what damage is done per square meter, and it's not that impressive. If their shields are any good at deflecting plasma, and the armor any more significantly sophisticated than steel, I wouldn't expect this to be a big deal. This is exacerbated if the impact gets spread out at all along the time axis by the trip, which I expect it might be.

Since we don't know the actual operating principles of their shields and the weapons they are built to repel(I suspect both depend on magnetics that aren't actually possible in reality) then we can't say for certain if this kind of broad slap actually has the same effect as a focused impact.

It's also worth considering that the most optimistic number I was able to find on Atomic Rockets was a jet velocity of 10,000km/s, with most figures being much lower. At the ranges under consideration that gives five seconds(or more, in less optimistic numbers) for the plasma to radiate energy and do other interesting things, as well as time for the target to react with turning and/or burning.

_________________
Atomic Space Race, a hard sci-fi orbital mechanics puzzle game.
Homeworld Fulcrum, a Homeworld Remastered Mod


Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:18 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:14 am
Posts: 43
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
You know I have no idea how I managed to do that... I even ran numbers twice to make sure... :?: :roll:

My understanding.
Beam angle is the total angle measured.
Beam deviation is half the angle taken from the vertical.

I have found divergence being used to mean both but SDI paper states beam angle and then beam divergence so meh.

25000m radius circle(25km) which is 50km has an area of 1.96E9 m2
1960000000
314000000
~6.2 greater area.

At 50000km it will take out shields on pure energy alone(68 damage) which is greater then point blank shot of any of the Combatants plasma weapons.
Actual hull damage is another thing entirely... It will still do damage and still pump in a ton of heat(take out a modern day tank for example) I will assume advanced armour likely can stop most of the effects and only sensors and other stuff would be destroyed since they are soft targets.

At 50000km its going to take down the shields pump in heat and take out sensors and damage turrets to some degree but I am going to assume the ships armour will hold.

All my numbers are applicable for 20000km range not 50000km
Its still respectable weapon compared to the other combatants but not nearly as effective range wise.

You can't use antimatter for a shaped charge with the same degree of cohesion, atom formation by neutrons after an antimatter explosion will dirty your propellant rendering any produced beam irregular. That said Umiak/Loroi do have "carrier waves" and if they generated one for it to travel down then it could be vastly more effective then a Casaba then ship based weapons and be instant kills.

I did however discover something interesting, 5.7295779513082E-7 is the current reached deviation on a particle beam.
Particle beam advances are actually being made rapidly due to research and development of hydrogen injectors for fusion chambers and not weapons research. However due to advances made in collimation of particle beams the USA started this year a new particle weapon development program as its been deemed viable with current technology.

Minimum hydrogen beam deviation is
0.0000030939720937064
so
A particle weapon can have inverse divergence, it actually condenses as it moves if its cooled during focusing. Wouldn't work for a Casaba Howitzer but particle weapons don't need a carrier wave to travel long distances in Outsider. It makes complete sense, cool gasses condense when you think about it but its rather cool(no pun intended) yet very simple idea.

Siber wrote:
Quote:
I get ~50m diameter at 50km with 0.057 beam angle.

Right, I think I got crossed up and thought you were proposing that it was dangerous when the beam was dispersed over a 50km wide area, instead of being detonated at 50km. This comes from the idea that I recall being a starting point but I think we've wandered from, that a cassaba howitzer based firing chamber was a reasonable competitor weapon. If you can get your bombs up within 50km then yes it's probably an effective blast, but as I noted in my last post the combatants apparently already use shaped blasts to extend the kill range of their torpedoes, so it's not a very special trick.

However, in my experience divergence angle in these kinds of contexts is measured as angle from the center of the cone to the outside, not angle from far sides of the cone. That would make this a ~50 meter radius, not diameter. I was not able to find a source for the 0.057 beam divergence CHs that was perfectly explicit on this distinction, so I did my math on what I understand to be the default. So all other things being equal you should be getting intensities four times higher than I am.

However, 314000000m^2 is the area of a 10km radius circle, not a 50km or 25km one.

With a 50km radius area of effect, other assumptions permitted, I end up with the surface of the tempest absorbing a total of 17 points of damage, not 429.

Hydrogen is very penetrating and their is no physical way to stop it besides more mass, a modern day tank at 50000km even with the correct numbers would still have the crew cooked.

Yes shields can stop it, but insider states that even if plasma is defected the shields overload due to the energy level of the hit.
Its still delivering more energy at 50000km with the correct numbers against shields then point blank plasma shots.
Quote:
112500m2*1131.53MJ
127237500MJ of energy delivered to the tempest on a top down blast at 50000km
It hits with 15.9 times the energy at 50000km then the Terran GWS.


Perhaps, but you already did the math to what damage is done per square meter, and it's not that impressive. If their shields are any good at deflecting plasma, and the armor any more significantly sophisticated than steel, I wouldn't expect this to be a big deal. This is exacerbated if the impact gets spread out at all along the time axis by the trip, which I expect it might be.

Since we don't know the actual operating principles of their shields and the weapons they are built to repel(I suspect both depend on magnetics that aren't actually possible in reality) then we can't say for certain if this kind of broad slap actually has the same effect as a focused impact.

It's also worth considering that the most optimistic number I was able to find on Atomic Rockets was a jet velocity of 10,000km/s, with most figures being much lower. At the ranges under consideration that gives five seconds(or more, in less optimistic numbers) for the plasma to radiate energy and do other interesting things, as well as time for the target to react with turning and/or burning.


Last edited by MBehave on Thu Jun 13, 2019 7:26 am, edited 1 time in total.



Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:55 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:14 am
Posts: 43
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
Casaba Howitzer has almost no beam divergence.
A secondary laser is used as the waveguide instead of trying to do it all with magnetic fields.

Yep its a real thing

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/space ... /PROCSIMA/

This also makes Arioch "waveguide" technology actually real.
So thats actually really awesome.


Thu Jun 13, 2019 7:09 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:19 pm
Posts: 3085
Location: San Jose, CA
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
PROCSIMA is not a Casaba howitzer.

_________________
Outsider


Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:36 am
Profile WWW

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:14 am
Posts: 43
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
Your right, its only half of a PROCSIMA system(ok its not PROCSIMA at all but the laser waveguide is valid), the other half is the laser array circling the output aperture.
Image
Arioch wrote:
PROCSIMA is not a Casaba howitzer.


Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:20 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:19 pm
Posts: 3085
Location: San Jose, CA
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
The PROCSIMA concept requires a neutral particle beam. The output of a nuclear shaped charge is a jet of ionized plasma.

_________________
Outsider


Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:41 am
Profile WWW

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:14 am
Posts: 43
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
Which has a overall neutral charge, Casaba fusion pumped particle weapon produces quasi neutral plasma.
Arioch wrote:
The PROCSIMA concept requires a neutral particle beam. The output of a nuclear shaped charge is a jet of ionized plasma.


Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:49 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:35 pm
Posts: 1292
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
hi hi

First of all, PROCSIMA is still really hypothetical, and there are a lot of reasons why it might not work.

Second of all, it requires an absolutely neutral charge, not an overall neutral charge. Any transverse interactions between atoms being drawn toward each other by electromagnetism would ruin the hypothetical effect.


Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:12 am
Profile WWW

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:14 am
Posts: 43
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
All neutral plasma is "quasi neutral" the laser would effect a Casaba Howitzer beam in this regard just fine.
I got a second opinion.
Gradient pressure isn't theory, you can pick up a speck of graphite from a pencil with a decent laser pointer at home.

icekatze wrote:
hi hi

First of all, PROCSIMA is still really hypothetical, and there are a lot of reasons why it might not work.

Second of all, it requires an absolutely neutral charge, not an overall neutral charge. Any transverse interactions between atoms being drawn toward each other by electromagnetism would ruin the hypothetical effect.


Thu Jun 13, 2019 2:44 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:24 am
Posts: 423
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
MBehave wrote:
All neutral plasma is "quasi neutral" the laser would effect a Casaba Howitzer beam in this regard just fine.
I got a second opinion.
Gradient pressure isn't theory, you can pick up a speck of graphite from a pencil with a decent laser pointer at home.


Quasi-neutral or not, the interaction of plasma with light is very different from that of neutral atoms. What you want is an extremely uniform column of cold neutral atoms extending from your beam generator to the target with a very narrow distribution of particle velocities. The idea is to shine a laser down through the entire column, so you don't actually want much matter in it.

What the Casaba Howitzer gives you is a more or less directional blast of vaporized and mostly-ionized bomb material that is likely to also vaporize your laser source, making the fact that it's largely opaque to electromagnetic radiation fairly irrelevant.

Edit: also, you're going to need more than a laser pointer to levitate anything. You're going to need both a couple orders of magnitude more power and a laser source of sufficient quality to be focused to a tiny area. Since you mention graphite, you're probably thinking of optical manipulation of magnetically levitated graphite.


Thu Jun 13, 2019 3:02 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:35 pm
Posts: 1292
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
hi hi

MBehave wrote:
Gradient pressure isn't theory...
Could you maybe unpack this a little bit? I don't know of any Law of Gradient Pressure. Are you talking about Newton's Second Law of Motion, Pascal's Law, or maybe the Ideal Gas Law? Why does it matter if there is a theory behind it or not?

Also, if you're talking about optical levitation, you want a transparent, dielectric material, not graphite. And you're going to want at least 1 Watt for a 50 micrometer diameter sphere. Laser pointers are generally 5 milliwatts or weaker.


Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:00 pm
Profile WWW

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:14 am
Posts: 43
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
Youtube has quite a few laser levitation videos using cheap laser systems at home.

From dust to graphite from a pencil to tiny diamonds.
Sprinkle the tiny dust/lint/graphite particles through the beam and some will get trapped and you can move the laser around with them trapped inside. If you can modify the focus you can move the particle up and down the beam.

I thought it was same method as optical tweezers using gradient of force.

The argument was the beam had to be true neutral for a laser to be coupled with it.
It does not.
It also does not need to be cold.
The beam does need to be monoenergetic, the hydrogen particles having like energy level.

Which is a hurdle for a Casaba and I was told pretty much impossible.

The fact its happening in a firechamber and the beam is getting processed means its not out of the question IF the technology for the magnetic fields is there. Which has been my premise all along, the magnetic field strength for the Terran railguns is of such power using a firing chamber to collimate the beam shouldn't be impossible.

200kg to 400km/s almost 4 megatons over very small surface area and a length of 10m or so.
Such a weapon isn't possible, but it is in outsider so jumping on that technology as a basis I am saying the Ship mounted Casaba Howitzer is possible in this regard.


Ok
I didn't work this out Matterbeam at ToughSF did.
Quote:
400km/s in 10m is an average acceleration of 8000000000 m/s^2. Acting on 200kg, that's a force of 1.6 teraNewtons. If the projectile is 10cm wide at the base, the magnetic pressure could be the equivalent of 2e14 Pa, or 203 teraPascals.
It is hard to give an atomic bomb a 'pressure' in space, but in general terms you will need about 1 Pa to contain 1 joule in 1 cubic meter. Therefore, 2e14 Pa can contain the yield of 47.8 kT inside 1m^3.


A firing chamber 20m across can contain 100mt fusion reaction easily using the same level of technology behind the Terran Railguns.
So the only technological hurdle left working out if its possible to process the hydrogen beam to be monoenergetic.

icekatze
Laser beam with a differing intensity between the core and the edge has a gradient of force when that beam interacts with particles.
Mjolnir wrote:
MBehave wrote:
All neutral plasma is "quasi neutral" the laser would effect a Casaba Howitzer beam in this regard just fine.
I got a second opinion.
Gradient pressure isn't theory, you can pick up a speck of graphite from a pencil with a decent laser pointer at home.


Quasi-neutral or not, the interaction of plasma with light is very different from that of neutral atoms. What you want is an extremely uniform column of cold neutral atoms extending from your beam generator to the target with a very narrow distribution of particle velocities. The idea is to shine a laser down through the entire column, so you don't actually want much matter in it.

What the Casaba Howitzer gives you is a more or less directional blast of vaporized and mostly-ionized bomb material that is likely to also vaporize your laser source, making the fact that it's largely opaque to electromagnetic radiation fairly irrelevant.

Edit: also, you're going to need more than a laser pointer to levitate anything. You're going to need both a couple orders of magnitude more power and a laser source of sufficient quality to be focused to a tiny area. Since you mention graphite, you're probably thinking of optical manipulation of magnetically levitated graphite.


Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:01 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:24 am
Posts: 423
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
Any optical tweezer demos done with low power lasers are using lasers that are still many times more powerful than a laser pointer, and manipulating particles suspended in a fluid, using thermal effects on the liquid or air surrounding the particles. It should be obvious why this wouldn't work on gas particles in a vacuum.

The beam has to be neutral particles. Being neutral overall is not sufficient. The problem with plasma isn't that it doesn't interact with light, it'll interact quite well, and you won't get your focused beam, you'll just get some hotter and faster expanding plasma. It also absolutely does have to be cold. The confining effect of the laser is not strong, and if the molecules are moving too quickly they will escape. They also need to occupy a very narrow range of velocities in terms of overall beam motion, or they will collide with each other, convert the motion to heat, and escape. Additionally, doppler effects will change how the beam interacts with the particles. You want something as close as possible to a bunch of particles flying in formation to the target.

Ionized hydrogen consists of free electrons and protons. The whole concept of energy levels only applies to bound systems...neutral hydrogen.

You need a continuous beam of transparent, extremely uniform, cold, high and very consistent energy, neutral gas of sufficiently low density that a laser can travel along the length of the entire beam to the target with little attenuation. A nuclear device is not a reasonable approach to generating such a beam.

And as icekatze said, it's not clear how workable PROCSIMA actually is. The system seems certain to be unstable at best. Basic conservation of momentum makes a strong argument that you can't keep deflecting both neutral atoms and photons near the edge of the beam inward to keep the beam collimated.


Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:19 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:24 am
Posts: 423
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
MBehave wrote:
A firing chamber 20m across can contain 100mt fusion reaction easily using the same level of technology behind the Terran Railguns.


Accelerating a couple hundred kg of inert projectile is nothing at all like confining a detonating thermonuclear weapon in a chamber tens of meters across. How can you suggest the two are anything like equivalent?


MBehave wrote:
So the only technological hurdle left working out if its possible to process the hydrogen beam to be monoenergetic.


And all the other stuff. Oh, and justifying such a mechanism for generating cold, uniform neutral particle beams when there's got to be about a billion more suitable approaches.


Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:28 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:14 am
Posts: 43
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
The peak field strengths required ARE alike, or actually less for the fusion chamber.

Mjolnir wrote:
MBehave wrote:
A firing chamber 20m across can contain 100mt fusion reaction easily using the same level of technology behind the Terran Railguns.


Accelerating a couple hundred kg of inert projectile is nothing at all like confining a detonating thermonuclear weapon in a chamber tens of meters across. How can you suggest the two are anything like equivalent?


MBehave wrote:
So the only technological hurdle left working out if its possible to process the hydrogen beam to be monoenergetic.


And all the other stuff. Oh, and justifying such a mechanism for generating cold, uniform neutral particle beams when there's got to be about a billion more suitable approaches.


Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:31 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:10 am
Posts: 347
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
I'm not going to dig into everything else at the moment, but I am curious where the 10m barrel length figure is coming from. I understood the weapon to be fixed mounts because if it's size, and the smallest ship that carries a heavy mass driver is almost 300m. Was there word of god on this somewhere that I missed?

It probably doesn't make much difference in the final mathing because the forces involved in accelerating a projectile even over that length are still going to be bonkers, but I am still curious.

_________________
Atomic Space Race, a hard sci-fi orbital mechanics puzzle game.
Homeworld Fulcrum, a Homeworld Remastered Mod


Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:54 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:24 am
Posts: 423
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
MBehave wrote:
The peak field strengths required ARE alike, or actually less for the fusion chamber.


Except you have to apply those fields with a field topology suitable for bottling and directing plasma across a chamber with about a million times the volume, containing an explosion generating immense amounts of heat and neutrons. These things are nothing alike in their technological requirements.


Thu Jun 13, 2019 7:45 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:35 pm
Posts: 1292
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
hi hi

MBehave wrote:
icekatze
Laser beam with a differing intensity between the core and the edge has a gradient of force when that beam interacts with particles.
So... what does this have to do with gradient pressure not being a theory? Why does it matter if it is a theory or not? I still don't know which law you're referring to.


Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:34 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:35 pm
Posts: 1292
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
hi hi

Siber wrote:
I'm not going to dig into everything else at the moment, but I am curious where the 10m barrel length figure is coming from.
I'm not sure if there's a hard number anywhere, but it seems that the barrels on the railguns are pretty short compared to the whole ship, based on the image of the America that Arioch made.

At those sizes, and those power levels, I have a feeling that those mass drivers are meticulously maintained to avoid sudden, unplanned failure of the firing chamber. I would expect that they'd be considered very state of the art by today's standards, and probably not at all cost effective as expendable munitions themselves.


Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:57 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:10 am
Posts: 347
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
The barrels could run most of the length of that wing structure, which is a lot bigger than 10m long. I'd eyeball it at 50-70% of the length of the ship. Since we've got profile views of the ships I tried matching the sideview features and came up with close to 54%, so on a 320m ship lets call it 170m for round numbers.

_________________
Atomic Space Race, a hard sci-fi orbital mechanics puzzle game.
Homeworld Fulcrum, a Homeworld Remastered Mod


Fri Jun 14, 2019 4:41 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:35 pm
Posts: 1292
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
hi hi

That's what I would have assumed too, but the barrels in the wing structure are the torpedo tubes. The turret on the side of the wing structure with two barrels on the fore turret and one barrel on the aft turret are the mass drivers.

I know the properties of the mass drivers have come up before as being suspect. I'm not an electromagnets expert, but after playing a bit of Children of a Dead Earth, I might have decided on a mass driver that fired x400 1kg rounds instead of x1 400kg round.

For stuff like that, I just have to accept that the numbers in the insider were never meant to be exacting.


Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:28 am
Profile WWW

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:14 am
Posts: 43
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
They are stated as turrets not spinal mount.
Quote:
Many Terran vessels house weapons in turrets with multiple mounts; in the entries below, "04x2" indicates four twin turrets, with a total of 8 weapon mounts.

The big turrets are the lasers, the little side turret is the heavy dual and single mass drivers.
Look at turret size on profile.
Image
The large turrets go into the entire 320m length over 30 times

Image
Siber wrote:
I'm not going to dig into everything else at the moment, but I am curious where the 10m barrel length figure is coming from. I understood the weapon to be fixed mounts because if it's size, and the smallest ship that carries a heavy mass driver is almost 300m. Was there word of god on this somewhere that I missed?

It probably doesn't make much difference in the final mathing because the forces involved in accelerating a projectile even over that length are still going to be bonkers, but I am still curious.


Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:46 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:10 am
Posts: 347
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
Fair enough, I assumed they were the circular structures on the front of the wings, but I suppose those are probably missile launchers if anything. Shoulda looked at the loadout more closely. 10m is probably in the right neighborhood for those.

_________________
Atomic Space Race, a hard sci-fi orbital mechanics puzzle game.
Homeworld Fulcrum, a Homeworld Remastered Mod


Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:26 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:04 pm
Posts: 187
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
I still believe if Humans want to leapfrog in competition in war, they have to redefine the way it is waged. Flexing their creativity in ways that no sane person would consider, simply because no one has tried it yet. Risking possible worse scenarios than the one they face, simply because they might not win a war of extinction, so in desperation try a solution that makes war all the more frightening when it eventually propagates to other alien civilizations. Such as making hyperspace jumps purposefully more dangerous to their enemies, or anyone in a targeted star system.

Actually thinking on that concept, could be a reason the SOIA empire collapsed. No FTL travel alone could bring a dark age upon space civilizations that are reliant on it, and/or perhaps some weapon that exacerbated the psychological effects of Hyperspace may have brought on a pandemic of insanity across the empire.


Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:44 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 4:31 pm
Posts: 242
Location: Tallmadge Ohio
Post Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)
Here is an idea why not say go with a freaking bio weapon that you spray insecticide or someshit on Umaki worlds and by pass all this fleet based combat. We all know this war's factions won't tolerate the existence of each other lets up the conflit to out right genocide. Make a few drone ships with the weapon show up in system and blast the shit out of the enemy home worlds.


Wed Jun 19, 2019 12:09 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 92 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


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