Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)

Discussion regarding the Outsider webcomic, science, technology and science fiction.

Moderator: Outsider Moderators

User avatar
danuis
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:47 am

Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)

Post by danuis »

Arioch wrote:All of the above is true, but it's not just a question of control and decision making. Starships are extremely complex collections of systems that need monitoring, calibrating, maintenance and repair. Automation can take care of some of this, but there are times (especially in combat) when things go wrong and solutions to unexpected problems need to be figured out and implemented on the fly, and sometimes manually. At this tech level, living operators can do this more effectively and more cheaply than the equivalent mechanical systems.

That's not to say that there aren't robots aiding the living crews in these ships; there are. But the tasks that robots tend to be worst at are things that nobody expected to happen.
Over at the COADE forums, we had this discussion a bit. While we concluded that crews will not be in the thousands, hundreds, or even high-dozens range, there was still need for some crew, if just to repair the numerous computers and systems to maintain the ship. Automation is a useful tool, but all tools need a human behind them somewhere, even if behind a screen, to help make sure it all goes well. Even for a system patrol vessel...add in FTL and multiple systems and their attributes, you add even more complexity, wear-and-tear, and need for upkeep.

zircher
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 4:47 am

Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)

Post by zircher »

I wonder about that. To operate and monitor a spacecraft, you can get by with a small crew. But you can also look and something with a multi-mission role like a Nimitz class carrier, it has 6,000 sailors without the added complexity of being space worthy. The limit on crew size might have more to do with logistics than anything else. An Ohio-class submarine has a crew of around 150-160 sailors and represents a vehicle that is capable of independent operation in a hostile environment.

Got a link to that other forum post, I'm a bit curious about the discussion. [Ah! Found it, that will take a while to digest.]

User avatar
icekatze
Posts: 1399
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:35 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Contact:

Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)

Post by icekatze »

hi hi
danuis wrote:Automation is a useful tool, but all tools need a human behind them somewhere, even if behind a screen, to help make sure it all goes well.
I can accept that from a narrative standpoint, it is necessary to have humans in the story, and don't think that is unreasonable at all. But from a standpoint of realism, I would suggest that we are far more likely to invent computers that can do all those things and do them better than a human could before we invent a way to easily travel between stars, than the other way around.

User avatar
Arioch
Site Admin
Posts: 4486
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:19 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)

Post by Arioch »

Computers can't turn a wrench. Robots can, but unless your tech level is very high, robots are more expensive than humans and less capable. If we're talking prediction of the future, I think humanity will most likely achieve absurdly high levels of technology before we ever (if ever) find a way to move ships between stars... and at that point there may be very little distinction between living and automation... but that is a separate discussion.

I have been recently studying how modern merchant ships operate, and here is a case where automation has been taken to the extreme limit that is economically feasible. Almost all large cargo vessels are now modular container ships that are the simplest and most efficient arrangement of systems that require a minimum of manpower to operate, load and offload. Very large ships 300-400 meters long now have crews as small as 22-33, but despite the automation, the crews can't get much smaller than that. 4-5 of these crewmen are deck officers (including the captain) who take watches on the bridge and steer the ship, and 2-4 are stewards and cooks who tend to the needs of the crew, but the remaining 13-24 are engineers and deck hands who keep the systems running and prevent the ship from falling apart. That number may continue to fall as the effectiveness of automation increases, but at some point you reach a minimum number of people who must be necessary to maintain the ship. There needs to be eyeballs on all parts of the ship to make sure there isn't a problem, and hands to fix the problems when they're found. Even automated systems need to be calibrated and overridden if they fail.

Warships are different matter -- in addition to the added complexity of weapons and war fighting systems, ordnance, small boats and aircraft that must be handled, the crew must be able to fully man the ship 24-7 in combat situations. This means multiple watches, extra hands to deal with expected damage and malfunction in combat, and redundancy so that the ship can still function if they sustain crew casualties. As automation has increased, modern warship crew sizes have also dropped, but the current US surface combatant, the 155m Burke-class DDG still requires a crew of 276. And that's even after measures like requiring deck hands to prepare meals and do steward-type work... and there is significant concern within the Navy community that these ships may not be able to function properly with such small crews if they are ever put into a real war situation.

Until we get into ultra-mondo-high tech bio-ships that have self-sustaining internal metabolisms, warships will require hands to keep them working. The super-high-tech Historians' probe vessels are completely automated, but even the Historians' warships still require crews.

User avatar
icekatze
Posts: 1399
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:35 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Contact:

Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)

Post by icekatze »

hi hi
Arioch wrote:but that is a separate discussion.
I, uh, guess I'll leave it at that, then.

User avatar
danuis
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:47 am

Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)

Post by danuis »

Arioch wrote:Computers can't turn a wrench. Robots can, but unless your tech level is very high, robots are more expensive than humans and less capable. If we're talking prediction of the future, I think humanity will most likely achieve absurdly high levels of technology before we ever (if ever) find a way to move ships between stars... and at that point there may be very little distinction between living and automation... but that is a separate discussion.

I have been recently studying how modern merchant ships operate, and here is a case where automation has been taken to the extreme limit that is economically feasible. Almost all large cargo vessels are now modular container ships that are the simplest and most efficient arrangement of systems that require a minimum of manpower to operate, load and offload. Very large ships 300-400 meters long now have crews as small as 22-33, but despite the automation, the crews can't get much smaller than that. 4-5 of these crewmen are deck officers (including the captain) who take watches on the bridge and steer the ship, and 2-4 are stewards and cooks who tend to the needs of the crew, but the remaining 13-24 are engineers and deck hands who keep the systems running and prevent the ship from falling apart. That number may continue to fall as the effectiveness of automation increases, but at some point you reach a minimum number of people who must be necessary to maintain the ship. There needs to be eyeballs on all parts of the ship to make sure there isn't a problem, and hands to fix the problems when they're found. Even automated systems need to be calibrated and overridden if they fail.

Warships are different matter -- in addition to the added complexity of weapons and war fighting systems, ordnance, small boats and aircraft that must be handled, the crew must be able to fully man the ship 24-7 in combat situations. This means multiple watches, extra hands to deal with expected damage and malfunction in combat, and redundancy so that the ship can still function if they sustain crew casualties. As automation has increased, modern warship crew sizes have also dropped, but the current US surface combatant, the 155m Burke-class DDG still requires a crew of 276. And that's even after measures like requiring deck hands to prepare meals and do steward-type work... and there is significant concern within the Navy community that these ships may not be able to function properly with such small crews if they are ever put into a real war situation.

Until we get into ultra-mondo-high tech bio-ships that have self-sustaining internal metabolisms, warships will require hands to keep them working. The super-high-tech Historians' probe vessels are completely automated, but even the Historians' warships still require crews.
Indeed. And while intrasystem ships might 'see' everything or have hours or days of advanced warning, maybe cutting down on the 24/7 cycle, when you jump from system to system, it re-adds the need for crew as systems and scenarios become complex and out of the immediate information cycle.

User avatar
icekatze
Posts: 1399
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:35 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Contact:

Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)

Post by icekatze »

hi hi

Handling complex inputs is one of the things that artificial intelligence excels at. They're getting to be generally better at separating signal from noise than humans.

If there's one factor about space travel that is in humanity's favor, it is the timescales that events happen at. A computer's fast processing power might become less important when the next closest intercept is measured in days. :P

Sweforce
Posts: 546
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)

Post by Sweforce »

icekatze wrote:If there's one factor about space travel that is in humanity's favor, it is the timescales that events happen at. A computer's fast processing power might become less important when the next closest intercept is measured in days. :P
Or centuries if you do not have access to FTL...

Let's just say in an non FTL setting starships are highly unlikely to ever return to their point of origin. Instead, for going back in the other direction a new and modern ship will be built instead. This would lead to a situation where the further out from it's civilization start point (Earth for us humans), the lower the tech level of the colony. Old ships would of course receive upgrades before being sen away but the mere fact that original vessel may be millennia old is just something you cannot do much about. I can even envision settings where there are starships that have been active for millions of years.

LegioCI
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 3:15 pm

Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)

Post by LegioCI »

Arioch wrote:
CrimsonFALKE wrote:Well is there any chance to use drones to boost Loroi numbers or are drones to cowardly for Loroi taste
An unmanned starship would not be less expensive to construct than a manned starship, (it might be more expensive, due to the automated systems that would need to replace the crew's function), and it would be less capable in combat. The Loroi are at times experiencing shortages of trained crews, but not to the point where it would make economic sense to construct unmanned ships.

If unmanned warships could fight as effectively and more cheaply than manned ships, then all the ships would be unmanned. Since both sides use crews, it seems reasonable to suppose that they do so for a practical reason.
As long as we're talking about drone and unmanned weapoons, are Relativistic Kill Vehicles a viable strategy? Sure they take years or even decades to do their thing, but I don't think that's an issue when the Loroi/Umiak War has been going for 25 years and seems to be a two-way war of extermination that will likely go on for decades or centuries. In this situation a long-term strategic weapon like a swarm of RKVs could be a viable way to force capitulation, the major problems being the matters of targeting and timing. (Basically, finding worthwhile targets that may be several lightyears away, and relying on those targets being there years from now.)

Some advantages RKVs would have within Outsider:

-Stealth: An RKV needs only a relatively quiet low-thrust, high-impulse engines. Assuming the preferred long-range detection method is to look for the Gamma/X-Ray/Thermal signatures of starship drives, the low-power ion engine of an RKV is incredibly stealthy, with only a low-level thermal signature that could easily be masked by keeping the thrusters behind the bulk of the vehicle. Another bonus is that an RKV can shut down or jettison its drives and coast silently towards its target from outside easy detection range. The only signature in this case would be the occasional random flashes as chunks of interstellar medium impact the leading edge of the weapon, but other than this it would be down to luck; looking in the right place at the right time to spot a tiny target in time to do something about it, which is only frustrated by...

-Unpredictability: Most of the strategy that's been shown in the comic revolves around the defense of known and largely predictable hyperspace entry vectors. (It's mentioned somewhere that both sides are constantly exploring and looking for new systems or jump-points in order to outmaneuver a system's defenses or find a hyperspace backdoor into their rear lines.) Since an RKV has an amount of maneuverability en route and doesn't need to take a "straight" path between one system and another, an RKV could be programmed to attack a system from unpredictable vectors, as well as "safe" systems far behind the front lines; this becomes even worse for the defender when you realize that they may only detect the RVK at the last second, giving them precious little time to mitigate their damage, which brings up...

-Unstoppable: As far as I can tell, there is no good way to stop an RKV near its terminus. Attempting to destroy the RKV merely turns a solid lump into a cloud of relativistic shrapnel, and even a small portion of it hitting its target will be a significant disaster. The only realistic is to deflect it, but even this is no easy feat; any interception would need to take place well outside the targeted system, which would necessitate early detection- assets would then need to be moved to intercept the RKV and since there isn't a good way for those assets to match its velocity, they'll likely get a single shot at an intercept.

-Mass-Producible: Considering that the RKV is just a mass, full, a high-impulse engine, and basic guidance you can probably afford to mass-produce them; while it is theoretically possible to stop a single RKV, dozens could be launched at a single system, guided along unpredictable courses to attack a system from several directions. With some patience and calculation, you could theoretically launch multiple swarms against several systems so that every swarm hits at roughly the same time, wiping out large sections of the targeted species/faction and affording a significant strategic advantage, especially if you're able to his large, "static" targets like shipyards, mining operations, agricultural and population centers, etc.

If nothing else, RKVs could be an effective terror weapon, forcing opponents to divert energy and resources to protecting their systems that could otherwise be used defending jump points or pushing into enemy territory.

Is there any particular reason why RKVs wouldn't be a viable strategic weapon?
"But notice how the Human thinks. 'Interesting... how can I use this as a weapon?'" - Arioch

User avatar
icekatze
Posts: 1399
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:35 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Contact:

Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)

Post by icekatze »

hi hi

Relativistic Kill Vehicles are something that get brought up from time to time. If memory serves, there are a number of reasons why they're not employed, a number of which are political.

I'm not sure we can accept the premise that the war is expected to go on for decades or centuries. The leadership in the Loroi Union certainly does not want the war to go on that long, and there has to be serious concerns about whether they could sustain the war effort that long. Both sides seem to be looking for an opening to deliver a quick victory.

Using relativistic weapons would also likely undermine a government's support from its allies. When the Loroi practically wiped out the Tithric, it stunned their allies and caused a great deal of political headache for them. Even if they could wipe out a client state that decides they're taking their ball and going home, the Loroi do not want to fight a war on multiple fronts.

Neither side knows where all of the other side's colonies are. If one side decides to use relativistic weapons, the other side is likely to reciprocate. This leads to a bunch of colonies on both sides being wiped out, but not actually deciding the war.

User avatar
Arioch
Site Admin
Posts: 4486
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:19 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)

Post by Arioch »

This kind of weapon has been discussed several times before; here's a whole thread about it, and more here.

In general I think that a weapon that takes decades to arrive at its target is just not a viable military weapon in the time scales of this conflict.

MBehave
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:14 pm

Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)

Post by MBehave »

Well apparently I should have just gone with a big laser.

So messing around with energy numbers.
A Terran Cruiser has 6 heavy railguns, they fire a projectile with 16000000 MJ of energy every 60s so even assuming 100% efficiency this gives us a min amount of energy the ship can provide of 16000000*6 every 60 seconds to power a laser.

96000000‬ MJ of energy.
So a lets install a spinal mounted laser instead of a particle cannon on the Battlecruiser.

1e-8 wavelength Xray laser at only 5% efficiency(4800000MW Output) and a 20m wide projector that fires in 1 second pulses.
Gives a rather fearsome weapon.
Target distance-beam radius at target-Tungsten Armour Penetration Depth.
300000km, 0.183m, 91m
200000km, 0.122m, 308m
100000km, 0.061m, 2.4km(yep this thing could punch a hole clear through a Umiak Superheavy at 100000km if it was made from solid Tungsten)

Even at 500000km the beam radius is still good at 0.3m and still punches through 19m of tungsten.
Anything under 69000km and the beam stops just cutting and causes thermal shock and could be considered to destroy a ship outright.

Lets try something more "realistic" real world UV laser have working efficiencies of up to 23% both increasing the total output and reducing the waste heat. We need to increase the Emitter width to 60m due to massively increased divergence due to wavelength to compensate.
It does appear that it would just fit.
https://well-of-souls.com/gallery/images/cruiser1.jpg

2.23e-7 wavelength UV Laser at 23% efficiency(22,080,000MW output) 60m wide projector.
Target distance-beam radius at target-Tungsten Armour Penetration Depth.
300000km, 1.36m, 1.02m.
200000km, 0.9m, 3.45m.
100000km, 0.45m, 276.6m.

UV laser has lost a lot of its penetrating power over an Xray laser even with being over 4 times more powerful/efficient and at no reasonable point does it cause thermal shock only cutting action.
That said it seems like it would punch a hole through any ship at 100000km and cause serious damage at 200000km, while taking out turrets and other things on the hull at 300000km.

All calcs were done through this site, its fun to mess around with.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170412014 ... /laser.php

User avatar
RedDwarfIV
Posts: 398
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 12:22 am

Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)

Post by RedDwarfIV »

MBehave wrote:1e-8 wavelength Xray laser at only 5% efficiency(4800000MW Output) and a 20m wide projector that fires in 1 second pulses.
Gives a rather fearsome weapon.
Target distance-beam radius at target-Tungsten Armour Penetration Depth.
300000km, 0.183m, 91m
200000km, 0.122m, 308m
100000km, 0.061m, 2.4km(yep this thing could punch a hole clear through a Umiak Superheavy at 100000km if it was made from solid Tungsten)

Even at 500000km the beam radius is still good at 0.3m and still punches through 19m of tungsten.
Anything under 69000km and the beam stops just cutting and causes thermal shock and could be considered to destroy a ship outright.
Meanwhile, in 2015...
RedDwarfIV wrote:On the other hand, that's because our weapons wouldn't be up to par. Not unless we built a kilometre long spacecraft built around FEL Xaser loops or something..
If every cloud had a silver lining, there would be a lot more plane crashes.

MBehave
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:14 pm

Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)

Post by MBehave »

Well its not the length thats important its the width of the Emitter.
Loroi seem to have Gamma lasers due to the small size of the point defense lasers emitters/lens and there range.

Battlecruiser/Cruiser is the first Terran ship large enough to have a decent ranged UV laser by a spinal mounted emitter/lens.

Large laser emitter/lenses are the way lower tech Civilizations could fight at the ranges or greater then Umiak/Loroi particle weapons.
Its however has the following problems
1.Spinal mounted Lens=1 Gun while particle weapons can be on turrets and don't need a wide emitter/lens.
2.Size makes it easy to damage, rendering it useless and the ship non combat effective.
3.It would generate between 3-5x more waste heat over the same on target energy particle weapon while using 3-5x more energy.

You would want to use particle weapons over lasers, but if you can't build good enough particle weapons then large emitter/lens lasers give you the ability to fight back.
RedDwarfIV wrote:
MBehave wrote:1e-8 wavelength Xray laser at only 5% efficiency(4800000MW Output) and a 20m wide projector that fires in 1 second pulses.
Gives a rather fearsome weapon.
Target distance-beam radius at target-Tungsten Armour Penetration Depth.
300000km, 0.183m, 91m
200000km, 0.122m, 308m
100000km, 0.061m, 2.4km(yep this thing could punch a hole clear through a Umiak Superheavy at 100000km if it was made from solid Tungsten)

Even at 500000km the beam radius is still good at 0.3m and still punches through 19m of tungsten.
Anything under 69000km and the beam stops just cutting and causes thermal shock and could be considered to destroy a ship outright.
Meanwhile, in 2015...
RedDwarfIV wrote:On the other hand, that's because our weapons wouldn't be up to par. Not unless we built a kilometre long spacecraft built around FEL Xaser loops or something..

User avatar
Ithekro
Posts: 261
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2019 3:55 am

Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)

Post by Ithekro »

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.

MBehave
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:14 pm

Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)

Post by MBehave »

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.

User avatar
RedDwarfIV
Posts: 398
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 12:22 am

Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)

Post by RedDwarfIV »

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.

MBehave
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:14 pm

Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)

Post by MBehave »

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.

User avatar
RedDwarfIV
Posts: 398
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 12:22 am

Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)

Post by RedDwarfIV »

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.

MBehave
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:14 pm

Re: Terran Nuclear Tech (split from Terran Q&A)

Post by MBehave »

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.

Post Reply