Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nikitian]

@RC Thanks for the help.
Also, yeah, I remember it just as Paris said, so unless it was a different time, it might work for certain few artifacts.

Also, coincidentally, I too thought about building a smaller ship similar to Paracelsus's Sword. But Paris's idea of making it a stealth research ship trumps everything.
I mean, the main danger with the Paracelsus's Sword (and especially so with this ...Descartes's Rapier?) is that it might have a hard time standing up to a fleet of regular military ships. As such, if it is ever ambushed, it might come off badly and even risk capture or destruction - and with a stealthship we are practically immune to ambushes! Not to mention such a valuable ability as go into UWM-controlled space unnoticed and conduct the vital research right under their nose.

[Radio Controlled]

I asked him on irc once, quite some time ago, and he said (iirc) it wouldn't work on the teleporter.

Also, sure, coat that ship in stealth tech. But note that it'll also need automanips to move stealthily, which might become really expensive for a larger ship. Also, jumping into a system will always be noticeable.

Oh, and we should call it Occam's Razor.

[Parisbre56]

I've been suggesting the stealth transport idea for a long time, I even suggested sending an IC message for the small prototype I designed in tinker, but nobody was interested in building it. I can send a message now, if you like, say it was sent before I landed in that hell hole.

And you don't have to be stealth all the time. The prototype I developed can use normal engines and only enter stealth mode when necessary. It's necessary to have conventional engines for all non shuttle ships, because accelerating to jump speed would take too long and be too expensive otherwise.

So you just need to give full automanipulator stealth capabilities to the lander shuttle.

Edit: Oh, and piecewise never answered my question about stealth jumps on the tinker thread, so unless you read that somewhere else...

And even if that doesn't work, we can use limpet stealth ships attached to "civilian" vessels. I'd asked piecewise about that too, but he didn't answer.

[Radio Controlled]

A thought hit me the other day: you know how a big disadvantage for using lasers in space defense is that, unlike Hammer rounds, they don't track, and thus are too easy to dodge at long range? And how diffraction will also broaden the beam so much that it loses a lot of penetration power?

Well, here's an idea: what if we installed a series of lenses and (parabolic or otherwise) mirrors around the Hep system, with which we refocus the beam and 'bounce' the laserbeam/pulse around? So then, the part that is aiming at the actual enemy ship is a parabolic mirror much closer than the actual laser, while also focusing the beam into a very tight spot at its focal point. The mirrors would be small installations of sorts, with motors to rotate the mirror, a couple small positioning rockets for when more movement is needed, some sensors and a QEC.

So, you could have a massive laser (thinking hard X-rays, though I'd have to check what would be best. Using X-rays would mean we can't really put one on a planet, I think) inside eg the moon of Hep, and it could fire anywhere in the solar system as long as the lens/mirror system is still intact/sufficiently dense. So, an enemy ship might be a light minute away (enough time to dodge), but if the nearest mirror is only 5 lightseconds away, then chances of hitting become much better. And even if the moon is facing the wrong way or the sun is in between, you can bounce around the beam and still hit. So, your own cannon can be safely hidden away, while still having striking capability.

The mirror net would be 'denser' at certain spots of course (eg a ways out of the FTL jump point there'd be some redundancy). And other ships and such could also make sue of it to greatly enhance their effective range. Of course, mirrors can be taken down, but against that we could cloak them, or make them so cheap we can afford to lose a couple for every ship we take out.

You could build several lasers around the system, to ensure there's always a cannon source near (reduces total time between shot and hit), but even far away cannons might still be able to engage targets. Hell, you could build a ring of cannons around the star and give them large solar panels.

I'd need to further work out the concept of course. Though if pw rules it could work, it might be applicable on different scales as well.

EDIT: here's a quote from project rho i found on the subject:

Combat Mirror

A more scientifically plausible but much less dramatic laser weapon is the combat mirror. In this scheme, the spacecraft doesn't have a laser, just a large parabolic mirror. The laser is several million miles away, on a freaking huge solar power array orbiting your home planet. You angle the mirror so it will do a bank shot from the distant laser off the mirror and into your target, then radio the laser station to let'er rip. About fifteen minutes later the diffuse laser beam arrives, and your parabolic mirror focuses it down to a megaJoule pinpoint on your target.

The advantage is that the spacecraft does not have to lug around the laser, the power supply, the heat radiators, and other massive elements of the laser weapon. The spacecraft can have a higher acceleration or increased payload. The beam can also be of a power level associated with laser equipment that is not considered "portable by spacecraft", if the laser generator is a few miles in diameter your spacecraft could care less.

Disadvantages include the lag time between ordering a shot and its arrival, and the vulnerable nature of the combat mirror (generally little more than a large Mylar balloon).

[Nikitian]

Hmmm. Perhaps with some preparation, these could even be deployed in fleet battles (namely when defending places that are not necessarily Hephaestus system). I think these would do well with Sean's FEL-cruisers.

Still, as for the space combat, I'm still trying to gauge the best way to use glowworm-gun technology. We know that given enough time even a tiny shot can be fatal; conversely, it does not need to be a huge powerful ship armament, it could just as well be used on a massive fleet of tiny ships - fighters' renaissance, perhaps? Or, more accurately, drones, since perhaps a hardware AI can be easier accomodated to extreme g-loads than anything human-brain-based. These could even be fired out of the same gauss cannons used for ships bombardment: either by deliberately "missing" a little, or aiming true and depending on the enemy maneuvers/automanips to avoid the hit (which might also be useful, in a way) to get the tiny (by ship scale) weapons in range.
Of course, if we manage to find out how to efficiently scale the weapon and solve the problem of the projectile hitting at long range, it might just as well be a regular "main caliber" ship weapon.

Conversely, I think we should actually employ forceshields for our ships' protection, even if rather thin: the protection they would offer against the same glowworm (and other "grey goo"-type) weaponry, not to mention the mere chemical weapons (as demonstated effective by current missions), is very promising.

[Parisbre56]

Hexplate can be used to reflect non-kinetic energy, so you could use that for x rays. Don't know if it's the best choice though. Maybe we should turn an asteroid into a capital ship. Or make a Titan ship.

Oh, and someone send a probe or even a voidship to that Titan carrier, if you can? Salvaging and rebuilding such a large transport would be invaluable.

[syvarris]

Spoiler: safely sealing syvarris' seperate (superficially) sage suppositions (click to show/hide)

PUT A REARVIEW CAMERA IN ALL MK SUITS

Good idea, added to list.

@Radio

Okay, I think I understand where our disagreement comes from.  If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the likelihood of the testament being stronger is so insignificant that it can't be said to be better.  I'm saying that even if the chance is extremely miniscule, it's still a chance, and therefore better.

Put another way, we have two pills, one of which is lethal.  A black pill which has a 50.1% chance to kill you, and a white pill which has a 49.9% chance to kill you.  You're saying that the difference between the chances is so negligibly minor that neither is really 'better'--you stand a functionally identical chance at dying either way.  I'm saying that since the white pill is 0.02% less likely to kill me, I will always take the white pill over the black, which implies the white pill is a better choice (if only just barely).

If this is the case, then I think we disagree on the likelyhood of the testament being a better weapon than the blifle for AP use.  If I had to name a (very) rough number, I'd say it had a 67% chance of ending up better than the blifle.  From what you've said, I think you'd name a number closer to fifty.  _{And that could lead into a whole 'nother argument about how if I think there's a bias towards A, and you think there's no bias at all, then A is still a safer choice.}

Or I could still be misunderstanding you.  I dunno.

Lemme give another example. Is there a difference between the doc saying "(based on your family history and genetics) you might get cancer next year", "looking at the blood test results, you almost certainly will get cancer next year" or 'I injected you with a pathogen in your sleep, you will definitely get cancer next year'.

I'm curious where this could go.  Yes, there's a difference between each one.  I would always take the first case, if I could choose.

Except if you follow a piece of advice I gave in good faith, yet I turned out to be wrong.

Trusting you is very different from believing that you're smart.  I don't take advice I don't agree with.

Eeh, probably not, unless it takes ridiculous proportions. I do wonder what made you change your mind though.

About what?

for protection against kinetics at closer range, such as planet-bound missile systems perhaps? Dunno how well our lasers could defend against that. Decently, probably, but it could be worth to check.

I consider ships different from installations.  Yes, I can see the purpose of armoring something immobile with forcefields.

Although, it's probably still not a good idea.  PDCs Planetary installations can be built mostly underground, which is effectively free armor.  Also, there's more armor options- we don't need the armor to be light, or low in volume.  It very well might be a cheaper option to use sharkplate with hexsand cladding for installation armor.

...Also, forcefield strength doesn't vary with size.  That means it would likely be very bad at spaceship scale armor, unless my below idea works well.

A thought hit me the other day: you know how a big disadvantage for using lasers in space defense is that, unlike Hammer rounds, they don't track, and thus are too easy to dodge at long range?

...No?  I remember Hammer rounds splitting into many sub-munitions that spread out, then tracked, so if you dodged one, you'd hit another.  In general I was under the impression kinetics are harder to hit with at range, but lasers are easier.


Rest of the idea is cool, although it seems a little too fantastic.

Conversely, I think we should actually employ forceshields for our ships' protection, even if rather thin: the protection they would offer against the same glowworm (and other "grey goo"-type) weaponry, not to mention the mere chemical weapons (as demonstated effective by current missions), is very promising.

My primary issue with this is that I don't think such weapons are very likely to show up in force, if at all.  Even if they do, we'll already  be over the biggest bump in this war--getting to actually be a threat.

Secondary issue is that it makes our ships more vulnerable to other types of weapons.  When the forcefields snap, they explode, which will immediately take off our entire outer layer of armor.  That armor was also likely stealth-assisting hexsand.  I don't think that massive weakness is an acceptable trade for immunity to weapons that may or may not exist in the future.

Oh, and someone send a probe or even a voidship to that Titan carrier, if you can? Salvaging and rebuilding such a large transport would be invaluable.

*agreement*

There's a reason I tried putting all four construction crews on the SMF.

I had an idea a little while ago, while eating steak.  Forcefields of the same material aren't solid to each other, you can move them by pushing on them, and they can be set to project at variable distances.

This means that we could layer the shield-projecting materials on top of each other, but in such a fashion that they all project their fields into the same spot.  If it's impossible to not have a 'top' forcefield, we can seperate the projecting materials with something like a very resistant spring that allows the top field to be forced behind the others when hit too hard.  If either idea works, it might be possible to have the fields effectively add their resistances together!

Of course, this being useful for battlesuits relies on a full forcefield covering being less than 2.5x as expensive as a standard plate of armor.  Even if it isn't, it might allow forcefields to be practical for larger things, like tanks and planetary installations. 

[AoshimaMichio]

Now what applications would Pimp Cane metal have? It can change shape and it can produce lift strong enough to hold adult man up in the air. New type of jetpack? Hoverboard V2?

[Empiricist]

Perhaps some sort of emergency actuator integrated into robot bodies and exoskeletons that, through the use of EXO rolls allows the user to increase the output of their motors?

Or make brain-cases out of them so that exo-users can just suddenly fly out of their bodies and amp everything?

Wait, we could hook them up to manipulator batteries to make levitation/recoil-dampening units! We might even be able to make LESHO rails out of them and have them cancel out the recoil forces (not sure what that would be useful, I guess if someone wants to give it a drum magazine and use it as a squad support weapon...).

And surgical applications for civil use. Just have them move around people's blood vessels and cut away clots/tumors/genitals.

[Radio Controlled]

@syv:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the likelihood of the testament being stronger is so insignificant that it can't be said to be better.  I'm saying that even if the chance is extremely miniscule, it's still a chance, and therefore better.

Almost, but not exactly. I'm saying that you're assigning too high a probability for A being better than B based on the (very sparse) data available, and that your language reflects that. I mean, there is the unknown conversion factor for both, no field data for either, and blifle isn't even lab tested very well yet. So how can you claim 'A better than B' instead of 'A has a slightly higher chance for being better than B'?

"But even if the chance is minuscule, there is still a difference, so still a small higher a priori chance that testament has better AP". Yes, I don't deny this, and have said as much previously. But say the weapons are almost equal in all respects other than AP (just an example), but blifle is a teensy bit better overall. But now, after considering the other points, the customer sees the phrase 'testament has better AP than blifle', and so decides to get a testament. That's false advertising, because you cannot yet claim 'A better than B' because that implies it's been proven beyond reasonable doubt, and it hasn't.

That said, this:

If this is the case, then I think we disagree on the likelyhood of the testament being a better weapon than the blifle for AP use.  If I had to name a (very) rough number, I'd say it had a 67% chance of ending up better than the blifle.  From what you've said, I think you'd name a number closer to fifty.

Is probably part of the problem. Maybe it's just my background, but I find this to be an enormous difference you assign on very limited data. That's like throwing up a coin once, seeing it's head, and deciding 'this coin isn't balanced, heads has a definite advantage' as opposed to 'heads seems to have a very small advantage so far, but there's not enough data to make any real claim'.

Sure, if I really had to choose, I'd gamble my money on it being heads on the next coin flip, but you cannot make any real decisions on the % heads vs tails.

Put another way, we have two pills, one of which is lethal.  A black pill which has a 50.1% chance to kill you, and a white pill which has a 49.9% chance to kill you.  You're saying that the difference between the chances is so negligibly minor that neither is really 'better'--you stand a functionally identical chance at dying either way.  I'm saying that since the white pill is 0.02% less likely to kill me, I will always take the white pill over the black, which implies the white pill is a better choice (if only just barely).

Ah, but there will always be an error function. Say there's a 2% standard deviation. Then the difference you found might as well come from equipment fluctuations. So, based on that one test, you cannot truthfully claim one is better, it might as well be random chance. Now, say you repeated this experiment a thousand times, and there is still a difference, then you can make a valid claim about lethality of one vs the other. And if you only had the one test, and had to choose, you should choose the one with least lethality. But if then someone asks you to tell them about the pill's lethality difference, you can only say 'A has a slightly bigger chance to be the most lethal', and not 'A is the most lethal'. Because the second implies you have a mountain of evidence to support that.

I'm curious where this could go.  Yes, there's a difference between each one.  I would always take the first case, if I could choose.

It's not primarily about choice here. Say your doc says 'you will get cancer next year' based on the average statistics that says 5% of your demographic (based on lifestyle and such) gets cancer. Would you say the doc is being correct? Or should he say 'you might get cancer next year'? Knowing that a different choice of words implies different certainties, and that the difference is important (in this example, one will cause much more distress to the patient).

And if your doc injected you with the pathogen that has 99% chance of giving you cancer, and says 'you might get cancer'. Should he say that, or should he say 'you will get cancer' in this case? Which choice of words will more correctly convey the chance of getting cancer to his patient? And if the choice of his words determines whether or not you undergo extra tests (with all the risks and inconvenience that entails), doesn't that mean the choice of words (and implied probability those have) is rather important?

"But it's just a silly game." Sure, but we were talking a technical subject here, and it's an important enough concept I think it warranted the discussion.

Trusting you is very different from believing that you're smart.  I don't take advice I don't agree with.

Sure, but tell me, does this trust alter your behavior in any way (eg the amount of evidence I need to show before you'll believe/follow me on something)? If not, it's kinda meaningless to say you do or don't trust me, and if yes, we revert to the previous.

About what?

About this:

I stopped being manipulative awhile ago.

I consider ships different from installations.  Yes, I can see the purpose of armoring something immobile with forcefields.

Although, it's probably still not a good idea.  PDCs Planetary installations can be built mostly underground, which is effectively free armor.  Also, there's more armor options- we don't need the armor to be light, or low in volume.  It very well might be a cheaper option to use sharkplate with hexsand cladding for installation armor.

That wasn't really what I meant. I meant a forcefield could protect the spaceship from ground-launched missiles (important if you count on the 'shoot all the things from space' doctrine). If you can have a laser point defense that's good enough, you don't need that, but if not then forcefields could still be useful. Hell, they can help defend against particle cannons (or does hexsand eat that as well?).

...No?  I remember Hammer rounds splitting into many sub-munitions that spread out, then tracked, so if you dodged one, you'd hit another.  In general I was under the impression kinetics are harder to hit with at range, but lasers are easier.

Lasers move faster, but due to lack of tracking they miss, opposed to a kinetic shell, when firing at long range. The sub munitions are of secondary importance really, it's the tracking that allows hits on long range space engagements. the mirrors allow lasers to do their final aiming at much shorter distances.

Rest of the idea is cool, although it seems a little too fantastic.

Wait, what? Why would you say that, exactly? Lenses, mirrors, and big laser cannons. All those exist in real life! The idea doesn't even really need space magic to work (the QEC helps, but it can do without, though you'll loose control and precision), as opposed to a lot of other ideas floating around. A hammer shell, a big lump of metal, moves at significant fractions of c! And it's fired from the planet! I wouldn't be surprised if the front of the shell compresses the air molecules enough to cause fusion or something.

Hell, look at this, about an asteroid impacting earth at different speeds:

Here’s where things get weird.
3,000 kilometers per second = 0.01c:
This would be pretty bad. The thing that makes this a little unpredictable is the fact that at speeds in the range of hundreds of kilometers per second, the air begins to undergo nuclear fusion (Google that paper title to find the full text). This, combined with plain old plasma heating, may manage to eat apart the diamond sphere completely before it reaches the ground.
But it doesn’t do the ground much good. The sphere doesn’t spread out enough to make a difference, and it still hits the ground in roughly one spot. The blast releases a thousand times more energy than the largest nuclear weapon, devastating whatever region it came down over. It gouges out a massive crater—though not the biggest one Earth has ever seen.

You can solve that (eg automanip that creates a tube of vacuum to shoot through) but it needs more spess magic.

If anything, a series of lenses and mirrors to bounce and refocus a laser beam is an uncharacteristically mundane system for ER.

When the forcefields snap, they explode, which will immediately take off our entire outer layer of armor.

I proposed something before: place shields on long struts/pillars outside the ship to decrease damage to self in case of failure. Coat strut in hexsand to prevent it being shot off.

@ dev:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Ok, so after the previous conversation (thanks for the feedback, by the way, though it felt a little bit stand-off-ish at times) I ran some quick calculations, and you're right, the initial estimate was way off. Still, I think the general idea might still be usable, so let's see what we get.

Ok, so imagine a laser, using hard x rays (wavelength 2 E-10m). It has a laser lens/reflector of 1m. Let's say you need a spot size of 1m or less to get a kill.

Using the formula of RT = 0.61 * D * L / RL  (source: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunconvent.php)
we find that the max range of our laser is 8 E9. That's about 26 lightseconds away.

This mean that, if we let the beam disperse till it's 10m in spot size, it'll be at 8 E10 (10x range). Say we put a mirror here, with the intent to use it to reflect at a target.

Using this (http://www.handymath.com/cgi-bin/arc18.cgi?submit=Entry) handy calculator and the formula of F=-R/2
we find that, to get a focal point at 5000m (5 km, and thus 10km radius of curvature) we need a mirror of 0.00125m (1.25mm) 'height'/width/thickness (which sounds more like a virtually flat surface, admittedly). Now, I dunno how attainable or not that is, but that sounds doable, given ER tech.

Now, we know more or less where the enemy ships will end up, do to the FTL point being a chokepoint (about the size of a small planet, which if we use Mercury as a guideline, means about 2400 km), and the fact that they'd be coming for Hepheastus.

So, the question is, is this still a usable idea?

As far as I know, there are 2 big problems with laser weapons at large range: the diffraction, leading to too low spot size, and light speed lag. In the worst case scenario, we could still put mirrors such as these at the expected engagement zone, because a lag of 28 seconds per shot means a randomly moving ship may dodge it, while if you bounce of the beam of a mirror here (even if you neglect focussing it) you can solve that problem. If you put the focal point at infinity, you just get a straight mirror for banking the shot off, so range of the focal point is less of a problem then (note: we have special hexsand coatings the UWM doesn't, meaning this reflector can reflect the weapons grade lasers, while their hull can't. And coating an entire movable laser cannon (basically a spaceship on its own) will be costly, especially if it's a long ship (such as the FEL cruisers)). ((EDIT: hell, even if a mirror doesn't survive the reflecting, that's allright as long as it can reflect enough to score a kill, we already assumed it would only get one use anyway before the enemy destroys it.)) If needed, we place these mirrors on a movable platform so they can get where they need to be (Sean, this means you can have your precious 'fighters', though not exactly in the way you probably expected them ).

Now, as to why you don't just put the laser cannon at that spot: because the enemy can detect and engage you. Suppose we can use stealth tech to hide a ship or mirror, but once used (to fire or reflect a beam) they are likely found and destroyed. In that case, I suspect it's still a usable idea, provided one of these mirrors is much, much cheaper than a laser cannon/ship (because that needs a lot of generators and heat sinks/radiators, and the lasing medium probably isn't cheap either). Note that it may be possible that one-use laser cannons using bluerad shards to fire once, then melt to slag, might also be a good/better idea, though these are more like 'long range mines' or long range missiles or something. That'll be for PW to guesstimate.

Next to that, once the ships come too close, you can still use your lasers the normal way, so even if this idea doesn't stand on it's own fully, it can be used to complement our already existing array of laser turrets and ships to increase their engagement range at an affordable price.

I don't know if the idea with the lenses is as unworkable as you claim, but looking at it you are right that getting a very long focal point is a problem.  I'll have to look into that (I thought using a big converging lens/prism to 'catch' the dispersed beam and make it into a smaller beam, then focusing that onto a second diverging lens/prism that makes it into a straight beam again (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/refrn/Lesson-5/The-Anatomy-of-a-Lens). You'd lose intensity, of course, but I dunno how much, or if it'd become completely infeasible.

Worst case, we scrap that part, and just use the mirror part of the idea to increase our engagement range (without having to build entire spaceships to place at that spot).

[Toaster]

Empi and others:  You folks could do a bit of research into how Q'baja handles criminals of murder and other high-offense crimes; if you needed seed material, maybe they wouldn't mind to much if a few of their problem criminals disappeared.

[Parisbre56]

@Sean: You should probably also check for biomods, dna alteration or degradation, any signs of foreign organisms, any signs of space magic influence and any other signs of anyone having been influenced by the kind of exotic materials you are working with.

Oh, and about drugs, what exactly do you mean? Even things like recreational drugs like cigarettes? Because with such a diverse worker population on Hephaestus (remember "Rasta O'Maley"?) you're bound to have a few users of drugs like caffeine or alcohol.

And maybe check the sod brains too when you have some time, just in case someone sabotaged their templates with a small but important imperfection. Or merely as a quality assurance test, since there are bound to be errors in a biological process.

And also make sure there are sods present during the test (and perhaps the test happens in some sort of isolation room without the one being tested having prior knowledge) just in case someone decides to go out with a bang or something.

[Nikitian]

I've been thinking about MCP vs. Mk comparison, when it hit me: can't we simply put on a skintight stiff-fabric bodyglove (for the lack of a better term) and then wear Mk series as usual? That way, even if a puncture comes, the inner shell could hold the hole with pressure; and without all the nice things (radiation/heat protection, heat dissipation, etc.) the skintight suit might just be cheap and thin enough to remain "free" cheap and make no difficulty of using the regular suit; and the irises already have the force and sharpness to snap through the bones, so mere stiff fabric should not be of a problem.

Why all this trouble? So that we could possibly make the self-sealing suits with the use of black goo sample from the anomalous planetoid; I think that stuff (or possibly some other material) can easily fill the thin distance between the Mk suit and skintight bodyglove and, remaining fluid while not exposed to the "outside", it can provide little to no difficulty of using the suit.

As for the helmet, it's still a slightly hardened fishbowl even in MCP series; probably no way to go around this unless we can agree to wear skintight masks. And even then the mouth will probably have to remain closed all the time, and there will be a small tech-problem of dealing with eyes. So no, I don't think we can go away from fishbowls.

[syvarris]

@Ao AND Emp (pimp cane)

Good ideas, thank you!  I've added them to my tinker file.

Spoiler: @Radio (click to show/hide)

Almost, but not exactly. I'm saying that you're assigning too high a probability for A being better than B based on the (very sparse) data available, and that your language reflects that. I mean, there is the unknown conversion factor for both, no field data for either, and blifle isn't even lab tested very well yet. So how can you claim 'A better than B' instead of 'A has a slightly higher chance for being better than B'?

I believe that A is a better choice, because A has a slightly higher chance of being a better gun.  Given no other information, a rational person wouldn't choose B, even though it's only slightly more likely to be inferior.

"But even if the chance is minuscule, there is still a difference, so still a small higher a priori chance that testament has better AP". Yes, I don't deny this, and have said as much previously. But say the weapons are almost equal in all respects other than AP (just an example), but blifle is a teensy bit better overall. But now, after considering the other points, the customer sees the phrase 'testament has better AP than blifle', and so decides to get a testament. That's false advertising, because you cannot yet claim 'A better than B' because that implies it's been proven beyond reasonable doubt, and it hasn't.

Did I ever outright say the testament has better AP ability than the blifle?  I have been intending to mean that the testament is more liekly to have better AP ability.

Sorry if I said that.  I didn't intend to be confusing.

Is probably part of the problem. Maybe it's just my background, but I find this to be an enormous difference you assign on very limited data. That's like throwing up a coin once, seeing it's head, and deciding 'this coin isn't balanced, heads has a definite advantage' as opposed to 'heads seems to have a very small advantage so far, but there's not enough data to make any real claim'.

I disagree heavily with this.  The correlation between coin flips is almost nil, at least in popular opinion.  I'd think that the correlation between lab use and field use is a good bit better, even with PW being unreliable.  If gun tests on Heph are basically irrelevant to what happens with guns on a mission, why do we even do any testing at all?

Honestly, if you believe this, why don't we just design twenty different weapons that are all different in their method of operation, but essentially identical in role and effectiveness?  Since every weapon could be entirely different in actual ability, we just cull the ones that are less effective, and keep those which are thrice as effective.

Ah, but there will always be an error function. Say there's a 2% standard deviation. Then the difference you found might as well come from equipment fluctuations. So, based on that one test, you cannot truthfully claim one is better, it might as well be random chance. Now, say you repeated this experiment a thousand times, and there is still a difference, then you can make a valid claim about lethality of one vs the other. And if you only had the one test, and had to choose, you should choose the one with least lethality. But if then someone asks you to tell them about the pill's lethality difference, you can only say 'A has a slightly bigger chance to be the most lethal', and not 'A is the most lethal'. Because the second implies you have a mountain of evidence to support that.

Yes, I understand all of this.  I agree 100%.

I'm still always gonna take B, given only that information.  Because it is a better choice.

It's not primarily about choice here.

<snip about wording for cancer chances>

The thing is, it is about choice.  We could make a choice between the blifle and testament.  Given what information we had, the testament would be a better choice.  Arguably, saying "better" might imply that it's a 80% chance to be the best, rather than 67% or 51%, but that's not what the word implies to me.

"But it's just a silly game." Sure, but we were talking a technical subject here, and it's an important enough concept I think it warranted the discussion.

This makes me happy.  I was worried I was dragging you into an argument against your will. Apparently you want to be here just as much as I do.

Sure, but tell me, does this trust alter your behavior in any way (eg the amount of evidence I need to show before you'll believe/follow me on something)? If not, it's kinda meaningless to say you do or don't trust me, and if yes, we revert to the previous.

Trust would alter my opinion.  We don't revert to the previous, because I'm saying I don't trust that you never give false advice.  I believe that you are falliable, just as much as any other human.  Therefore, if you give advice which seems incorrect to me, I don't assume that I'm incorrect and that you aren't.

...Yes, one could make an argument that in some areas, you are more experienced, and therefore I'm more likely to be the incorrect one.  When I know that that's the case, I will take advice that I disagree with.  Although, generally, I prefer to talk until I understand, rather than blindly accepting it.

About this:

I stopped being manipulative awhile ago.

I'm honestly not sure.  It wasn't something that I just *decided* on.  I think it was pretty much due to pity, and a lack on interest; I felt sorry for PW having to deal with it, and it really isn't difficult to trick him.  That means it isn't fun to begin with, and since I empathize it becomes a negative thing.

That wasn't really what I meant. I meant a forcefield could protect the spaceship from ground-launched missiles (important if you count on the 'shoot all the things from space' doctrine). If you can have a laser point defense that's good enough, you don't need that, but if not then forcefields could still be useful.

I... okay, I still disagree.  Kinetic armor on a spaceship is stupid, up until PW decides that it isn't.  He has said before that kinetics are easier to dodge than resist, and that lasers are your primary worry.  Putting kinetic armor on a spaceship make that ship slower, and easier to hit.  It's pointless up until you add enough armor that you are outright immune to hits, but then you have very slow ships, which will probably be killed by something which the armor isn't immune to.  Also, they're excessively expensive, as compared to a ship that just dodges.

Do these rules apply for forcefields?  I would think so, but I like to pretend that PW is at all consistent.  Go ask him, he'll probably change his mind.

Hell, they can help defend against particle cannons (or does hexsand eat that as well?).

I have no idea.  Hexsand is magic, and what it eats is decided by PW.  It doesn't seem to eat kinetic energy, which I think is the power of a particle beam, but it really just depends on whether PW qualifies a PB as an 'energy' weapon.

This is one of the places where you just don't think about it too hard.

Lasers move faster, but due to lack of tracking they miss, opposed to a kinetic shell, when firing at long range. The sub munitions are of secondary importance really, it's the tracking that allows hits on long range space engagements.

See, I just don't think this is true.  At long range, nothing hits.  At 'medium', lasers hit.  At 'close', kinetics hit too.

Did PW tell you otherwise?  If so, okay then, I'm wrong.

Wait, what? Why would you say that, exactly? Lenses, mirrors, and big laser cannons. All those exist in real life! The idea doesn't even really need space magic to work (the QEC helps, but it can do without, though you'll loose control and precision), as opposed to a lot of other ideas floating around. A hammer shell, a big lump of metal, moves atsignificant fractions of c! And it's fired from the planet! I wouldn't be surprised if the front of the shell compresses the air molecules enough to cause fusion or something.

Yeah, yeah, I was derping there.  'Too fantastic' is pretty stupid in ER...

My reasons for saying I didn't think it would work, are that it would require excessive precision for basically everything.  The laser needs to be aimed at an exact spot, as does the mirror, and the mirror probably requires a very exact shape.

However, all of that is pretty much trivial in ER, so I was just being stupid.

Thought: I'm pretty sure hexsand wouldn't be an ideal reflector.  It has a habit of eating energy, which would reduce some of the laser's power.  In fact, I don't think hexsand would reflect the laser at all--it's the material we use for the undetectable voidships.

I proposed something before: place shields on long struts/pillars outside the ship to decrease damage to self in case of failure. Coat strut in hexsand to prevent it being shot off.

Back when we first developed forcefields, Nik (I think?) suggested we avoid the whole "Your entire layer of armor will be destroyed" thing, by using a system of overlapping fields, whose projecting materials were far enough away to remain undamaged.  PW basically said no.  Your idea is the same, just on a larger scale.  It might work, but it requires forcefields to scale up within particular limits.  I doubt they can, so I'm not going to test it.

...Unless you want to pay me, I guess.  I'd happily spend a few turns testing whatever you want, for a single token.  It would be an easy way for you to work around your limitation of not tinkering and commanding at the same time, and if anything would make PW's job easier since I'm one of the worst multiturners.  It would make everyone happier--you get to tinker, I get paid, and PW has an easier job.

@Nik

 Interesting idea.  I think the primary two obstacles would be the in-character concern of encumberance, and the problem of cost.  Both the MCP and MK lines are somewhat restrictive, and wearing both would be doubly uncomfortable--like wearing two jackets at the same time.  Cost is an issue because it's more material, although just having redundant pressure systems would probably not be too expensive.

Still, it's certainly worth investigating.  Both issues are probably too minor to really mean anything.

[AoshimaMichio]

I would like to see if you can bypass Pimp cane's will control for more reliable control.

Also one thing: if you could store predetermined forms into the cane metal and then switch between forms. It will probably cost full free transformation, but that's fine.