View Full Version : A preview from a vaguely realistic FH...
Romulus Augustulus
September 10th, 2005, 09:34 PM
Anyway, just to give you some idea of what I'm working on, here's a sample warship data entry from this thing I'm working on. The vessel in question is the United States of Earth's ASHLAND-class corvette...
Total Mass: 100000 kg
Maximum Acceleration: 50 m/s^2
Engines: 2 x high energy compound fusion thrusters; 1 x Alcubierre drive unit
Maximum Engine Output: 5000000 N
Maximum Annihilator Reactor Output: 9000000 J
Length: 400 metres
Armament: 2 x massdriver-missile tubes, for firing the forty nuclear-tipped missiles stored aboard; 6 x medium particle cannons, mounted in a forward battery; Integrated Close-In Weapons System with 20 defensive laser cannons and 8 defensive missile launchers
I do need feedback, by the way. And in space combat, most all vessels from all races have large warheads...for the USE, it's nuclear tips.
Romulus Augustulus
September 10th, 2005, 09:58 PM
Well...anyone?
Romulus Augustulus
September 10th, 2005, 10:33 PM
Come on, people!
Romulus Augustulus
September 10th, 2005, 11:44 PM
Fine...more technical information. The engines most USE ships use work by taking a comparitively small amount of matter, often less than ten kilograms every second, and then redirecting the energy from an antimatter annihilation into that small amount of matter while at the same time sending it through a fusor-type containment and nozzle system. There is a long, composite-based tube, with this metal cage in it, which has the electricity cycling through it, creating a magnetic field that can contain the hypercharged piece of matter. This way, billions of joules can be zapped into a few kilograms of hydrogen fuel, resulting in a practical power source for large spacecraft. It's actually cheap enough to enable inexpensive large-scale transportation of bulk goods on enormous freighters...
Archangel Michael
September 10th, 2005, 11:49 PM
It seems interesting.
Forum Lurker
September 11th, 2005, 12:04 AM
From my own calculations, which are admittedly rough order-of-magnitude things, it seems pretty evident that directed-energy weapons are largely ineffective at any meaningful range. The dispersion rate is simply too high. Instead, you want extremely high-velocity railguns; something which can throw neutral particles can instead lob a 1 pg grain of iron at fantastic velocities, without risking dissipation over distance.
If bomb-pumped lasers are feasible, you'll want to use those instead of contact warheads; while lasers disperse too quickly to be used at light-seconds, they're still better than omnidirectional bursts.
As far as antimatter production goes, I should note that it's not really feasible unless you first have cheap fusion, given the enormous inefficiency of energy used:stored.
Romulus Augustulus
September 11th, 2005, 12:13 AM
From my own calculations, which are admittedly rough order-of-magnitude things, it seems pretty evident that directed-energy weapons are largely ineffective at any meaningful range. The dispersion rate is simply too high. Instead, you want extremely high-velocity railguns; something which can throw neutral particles can instead lob a 1 pg grain of iron at fantastic velocities, without risking dissipation over distance.
If bomb-pumped lasers are feasible, you'll want to use those instead of contact warheads; while lasers disperse too quickly to be used at light-seconds, they're still better than omnidirectional bursts.
As far as antimatter production goes, I should note that it's not really feasible unless you first have cheap fusion, given the enormous inefficiency of energy used:stored.
Yeah...cheap fusion. That's how they produce it...unless a fusion reactor can generate 30 gigajoules...anyway, missiles are used for long-range attacks, while particle-cannons are used closer in. Plus, particle cannons have fewer ammo constraints...;)
DarkSlavik
September 11th, 2005, 12:15 AM
quite interesesting.
Romulus Augustulus
September 11th, 2005, 12:20 AM
quite interesesting.
You should see some of the larger vessels...
luakel
September 11th, 2005, 12:23 AM
Sounds cool. :)
The US of Earth?
Romulus Augustulus
September 11th, 2005, 12:26 AM
Sounds cool. :)
The US of Earth?
Yeah...the US of Earth.
Romulus Augustulus
September 11th, 2005, 12:29 AM
Anyway, most of the races in Local Space developed culturally, technologically and militarily along the same lines as the humans, if not biologically.
hexicus
September 11th, 2005, 01:55 AM
I think unless America conquers every other country in the world, you are going to have a hard time getting other countries to join up to something called the 'United States' of Earth. Too much baggage.
What about Unified Nations of Earth or something?
Romulus Augustulus
September 11th, 2005, 01:58 AM
I think unless America conquers every other country in the world, you are going to have a hard time getting other countries to join up to something called the 'United States' of Earth. Too much baggage.
What about Unified Nations of Earth or something?
Oh no...the US undergoes an economic recovery in the 2010s, and globalization happens. The US blocs together with Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Australia, and Japan, along with the rest of the EU, and before long, the other First World nations form a powerful bloc in the UN. This bloc includes China and Argentina and Brazil and Russia. As warfare in the Third World becomes a problem, a pro-unification movement becomes pretty powerful...the US, which is a pretty respected, pretty powerful nation, and which actually has a pretty positive international perception by the 2060s, ends up leading the way.
fortyseven
September 11th, 2005, 03:17 AM
Cool ship, Interesting FH. Terran Republic and Republic of Earth are other good names.
Romulus Augustulus
September 11th, 2005, 06:38 PM
Cool ship, Interesting FH. Terran Republic and Republic of Earth are other good names.
I'll settle on United States of Earth, thank you. It's main geopolitical strategy is to expand outwards so as to be able to sustain Earth's enormous population. It needs raw materials to power its industrial complex and also colony planets on which to settle, both for resource exploitation and to protect Earth from outside threats.
Other races include the Centauri, the Unpronounceables, from Beta Hydri, and a variety of other stereotypical alien races, who have all developed sociologically, culturally, militarilly and technologically, if not biologically, quite similarly to humans, because in this universe, there's a certain pattern that's the law of nature and followed by all races.
Romulus Augustulus
September 12th, 2005, 02:28 AM
I've given the ship classifications some further thought...the roles of a frigate and corvette could cause some confusion...
But there are battleships...heavy, anti-capital ship combatants, cruisers, more medium-sized combatants...destroyers could either protect against small craft or else serve as light offensive combatants...corvettes could act as a screening and flanking force...frigates could be either lighter offensive combatants or else defensive combatants designed to protect larger capital ships from attack...carriers could carry offensive small craft...orbital assault ships could carry marine landing pods and dropships...
Soyuz
September 12th, 2005, 02:45 AM
Other races include the Centauri, the Unpronounceables, from Beta Hydri, and a variety of other stereotypical alien races, who have all developed sociologically, culturally, militarilly and technologically, if not biologically, quite similarly to humans, because in this universe, there's a certain pattern that's the law of nature and followed by all races.
Hm, are you sure you want to develop this as more dystopic Star Trek?
luakel
September 12th, 2005, 02:47 AM
for the USE, it's nuclear tips.
I just noticed this... how does a nuclear explosion work in space?
Othniel
September 12th, 2005, 02:52 AM
Yeah...cheap fusion. That's how they produce it...unless a fusion reactor can generate 30 gigajoules...anyway, missiles are used for long-range attacks, while particle-cannons are used closer in. Plus, particle cannons have fewer ammo constraints...;)
I don't see how missles would work in space unless you are propelling them at high speeds before leaving the bay(you do need at least some oxegen to start mosat flames right?), and smart missles would probablely work out worse...
Wouldn't torpedo be the more correct term?
Forum Lurker
September 12th, 2005, 03:00 AM
Missiles work quite well in space. You simply need to use a better fuel than LOX/H. If antimatter is readily available, that's used both for propulsion and detonation; otherwise, semi-controlled fusion is handy.
Nuclear detonations in space are purely flash effects: a very powerful pulse of gamma rays.
Ammunition isn't really a problem when using microweight projectiles; a .8c projectile need only mass 100 ng in order to carry a 30 gJ punch.
Othniel
September 12th, 2005, 03:07 AM
I'm just saying for propelling on a combustion style model...oxegen is valueable, can it be wasted for weaponry?
Romulus Augustulus
September 12th, 2005, 03:21 AM
Missiles work quite well in space. You simply need to use a better fuel than LOX/H. If antimatter is readily available, that's used both for propulsion and detonation; otherwise, semi-controlled fusion is handy.
Nuclear detonations in space are purely flash effects: a very powerful pulse of gamma rays.
Ammunition isn't really a problem when using microweight projectiles; a .8c projectile need only mass 100 ng in order to carry a 30 gJ punch.
Missiles have a miniature plasma engine, typically.
Paul Spring
September 12th, 2005, 03:23 AM
Ammunition isn't really a problem when using microweight projectiles; a .8c projectile need only mass 100 ng in order to carry a 30 gJ punch.
If something is so small that it's microscopic, I don't think that it's going to do much damage regardless of how fast it's going. It would simply punch a microscopic hole in the target.
Romulus Augustulus
September 12th, 2005, 03:25 AM
Here's the thing...hitting the damn target. Oh...and combat usually occurs at speeds around 250 m/s^2 to 2000 m/s^2...I figure that chemical missile weapons ought to do there.
Othniel
September 12th, 2005, 03:45 AM
Simply use torpedos filled with acid...
Romulus Augustulus
September 12th, 2005, 03:49 AM
Solid propellant has its own oxidizer built in. And they are nuclear tipped. That big flash of gamma rays and X-rays is also accompanied by a lot of heat and light...with the kiloton-range warheads commonly used...
Romulus Augustulus
September 13th, 2005, 12:42 AM
So I think that most units would have the particle propulsion (zapping a small amount of fuel with a lot of energy, getting it to go at one-third the speed of light or more to power the vessel) system, be capable of either using an Alcubierre driving or taking advantage of hyperspace conduits, and be armed with missiles.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.