Print

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

[Aseaheru]

But... If the HR drive fucks with circuits, how the hell do computers work?

Also, guns used in space would typically be as recoil-less as possible to reduce the effect on the ship, and most "recoil-less" guns achieve this by lots and lots of moving parts, Often via seperating various parts and doing mechanical wizardry. Another way ts done is by letting some gas escape to the sides/rear, but thats another design. In addition, alot of firearms on earth have issues with melting their barrels, which is compounded in space. Add to the fact that not all the propellent burns and almost always leaves residue and you have an issue.

Also, the soviet space pistol appears to have done fine against space suits, it is hard to armor cameras, sensors and solar panels, spaceships are designed with as low a mass as possible(something that probably wont be thrown out the window even on military spaceships), and most of the talk about pulse lasers seems to say that they would have an effect similar to kinetic weapons, thanks to them launching particles at speed... Oh, and the soviet laser pistol was (as far as I can tell from wikipedia) not a revolver.

I agree that kenetic weapons are probably going to be better than lasers on the ground, in the air and to an extent in space, lasers would probably work better than kenetics in many situations, although not really on ship mounted weapons, since they normally have far more power to use on, say, a railgun.

[Playergamer]

Well it was, and it wasn't. It had a revolver design and a normal design.

[Aseaheru]

Did it? Im really going to have to look at the article again. A few months doing other things must have affected my remembering of it.

[Stirk]

But... If the HR drive fucks with circuits, how the hell do computers work?

Also, guns used in space would typically be as recoil-less as possible to reduce the effect on the ship, and most "recoil-less" guns achieve this by lots and lots of moving parts, Often via seperating various parts and doing mechanical wizardry. Another way ts done is by letting some gas escape to the sides/rear, but thats another design. In addition, alot of firearms on earth have issues with melting their barrels, which is compounded in space. Add to the fact that not all the propellent burns and almost always leaves residue and you have an issue.

Also, the soviet space pistol appears to have done fine against space suits, it is hard to armor cameras, sensors and solar panels, spaceships are designed with as low a mass as possible(something that probably wont be thrown out the window even on military spaceships), and most of the talk about pulse lasers seems to say that they would have an effect similar to kinetic weapons, thanks to them launching particles at speed... Oh, and the soviet laser pistol was (as far as I can tell from wikipedia) not a revolver.

I agree that kenetic weapons are probably going to be better than lasers on the ground, in the air and to an extent in space, lasers would probably work better than kenetics in many situations, although not really on ship mounted weapons, since they normally have far more power to use on, say, a railgun.

Essentially, by having circuits that are really big compared to modern ones, thus making them less effected by materializing/dematerilizing. That is why the game has much larger computer than you would expect from the far future, seeing how we can already fit so much into the palm of our hand. They are protected in other ways too, which continues to add to their size. Making a handheld rifle hardened in the same way would make it too massive to use.

Also, guns used in space would typically be as recoil-less as possible to reduce the effect on the ship, and most "recoil-less" guns achieve this by lots and lots of moving parts, Often via seperating various parts and doing mechanical wizardry. Another way ts done is by letting some gas escape to the sides/rear, but thats another design. In addition, alot of firearms on earth have issues with melting their barrels, which is compounded in space. Add to the fact that not all the propellent burns and almost always leaves residue and you have an issue.

Spaceship mounted weapons are able to become significantly more complex than their hand-held counter parts, for the same reason mentioned in the computers. They still can't have a lot of finicky small parts, but it is enough for some simple mechanical action to release some of the gas elsewhere, significantly lowering recoil. They are generally place in a way that their comparatively low recoil (compared to the size of the ship) will not effect it too much, and computers are able to predict and account for recoil and their readings. Barrel heat, cooking off, and other heat related problems really are a major problem with the guns, most use a Gatling-style barrel to keep heat down and use liquid coolant to help with that. Laser weapons would probably have overheating problems as well. The propellant isn't pure nitrocellulose, or even the same single-base powder we use. Most spaceship weapons use special propellant, made specifically to keep down on excess residue while providing longer ranges that are necessary for space combat.

Also, the soviet space pistol appears to have done fine against space suits, it is hard to armor cameras, sensors and solar panels, spaceships are designed with as low a mass as possible(something that probably wont be thrown out the window even on military spaceships), and most of the talk about pulse lasers seems to say that they would have an effect similar to kinetic weapons, thanks to them launching particles at speed... Oh, and the soviet laser pistol was (as far as I can tell from wikipedia) not a revolver.

It is also hard to hit cameras, sensors, and solar panels. Could you hit something the size of a basketball from a mile away? I am not even sure how large the cameras would necessarily be, but there is no way they would make a great target. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_laser_pistol the Soviet Laser Pistol page says that they also made a Soviet Laser Revolver, though the article is pretty sparse and the link is broken. I don't know where you are finding more on it than that. The revolvers have to be locked away in storage for trips involving the HR drive, and if your gun is out when you jump the entire ship is destroyed anyway. And where are you getting your information on "pulse lasers" from? They aren't launching a particle if they are lasers? I'm sorry, I am trying to look it up myself, but as I said before there are dozens of types of pulse rifles and there seems to be just as many pulse lasers.

I agree that kenetic weapons are probably going to be better than lasers on the ground, in the air and to an extent in space, lasers would probably work better than kenetics in many situations, although not really on ship mounted weapons, since they normally have far more power to use on, say, a railgun.

Which reminds me, of course, that electromagnetic propulsion is a very valid spaceship weapon, though they still suffer heat difficulties they do not have the same problems the propellents have, though there isn't a way they can reduce recoil like the propellant powered guns have without throwing something the opposite way.

This is a fun conversation, at least.

[Aseaheru]

The wiki page for the Russian laser pistol was edited since last I looked, so that explains my confusion.

 So, vacuum tubes on spaceships and similar? Those computers must be massive... As in, the size of a typical military base... Atleast if you want something powerful, which you probably want to have on a military spacecraft that wants to dodge things.
 Your argument for shipmounted propellent based kinetic weaponry makes sense, and I secede that fact.
 Solar panels are MASSIVE. On the ISS they have about the same surface area as the rest of the place. Combine that with the fact that the computers you are talking about need exponentially larger quantities of energy than a modern comp, you would need similarly  large increases in the amount of solar panels, as well as radiators for handling the increased heat output of the computers. Add to that the fact that a marine (to use the word used in literature for this, since I dont know what the USAF or the soviets came up for it) is typically alot closer than a mile out, that ground troops today have hit things a mile away, and that with a tiny bit of computer help a person can hit something moving in a predictable manner (i.e., any spaceship that is not maneuvering at that exact second), the argument about hitting a target the size of a basketball from a mile away is moot.
 The same argument (or pieces of it) for shipboard propellent kinetics also relates to shipboard electromagnetic kinetics.

[Stirk]

So, vacuum tubes on spaceships and similar? Those computers must be massive... As in, the size of a typical military base... Atleast if you want something powerful, which you probably want to have on a military spacecraft that wants to dodge things.

Well you have the right idea. I don't (and your character doesn't) know enough about electronics to give a completely correct answer, but things like vacuum-channel transistors and more advanced versions with the same idea and less delicate parts. It makes them much larger, but the the size of a military base larger. Combined with that are some of the advances in electronics that we would be billionaires for even being able to think of, an the computers are what they are!

Modern solar panels are massive, since they are comparatively ineffective and modern spacecraft depend on them totally. Since FTL travel is common in this setting, it is nearly impossible to rely on them for a constant source of energy, since you will find yourself in a strange star half the time. More effective solar panels (Don't ask me how.) are generally used sparsely, with most of the energy needed being provided by the ship's generators that burn the same fuel the Engine does. Some larger, more technology advanced ships often use the heat generated from pretty much everything to receive additional energy as well.

The fact that I stated it is hard to hit something so small from a mile away was a point that even at close range it would be hard to hit anything. Modern spacecraft can go 9 miles in a second. To be able to hit anything, most techniques involved in this game are "Send as many bullets as we can where math says they will be", or alternatively missiles with searching functions. What you are suggesting is that it would be better to use a weapon that can only take out sensitive equipment, what I am saying is that you would have to have impossible aim to be able to hit. And if you did have the aim to hit such a small thing with your laser, you could completely devastate something more important with a big chunk of metal anyway.

Of course, in game we will probably get a bunch of "Dog Fights in Space!", because those are fun.

Have you ever tried hitting a moving target from even a few hundred yards away? It is difficult. The modern "1 mile" shots where done on stationary targets, from experts who ended up being really lucky on top of really good. You wouldn't be able to make such a shot consistently, no matter how you look at it.

[Stirk]

Additionally, I forgot to mention shielding. Shielding can protect sensitive parts from laser weaponry that isn't powerful enough to overcome it, defeating the point of having weak laser weaponry.

[Aseaheru]

I think the ones on the ISS are about 20% efficiency, and currently the record is about 46%, so thats true. Your point about size is true, but they can be made rather compact, depending on the array design. Combine that with the advent of transparent solar cells...

9 miles a second is an issue if you arent also going about 9 miles a second. If there are two ships going 9 miles a second in opposite directions then you should just throw some trash or screws in its path, it would just explode. My rebuttal to the small size thing also included radiators as a target, which are, again, quite large and quite thin, which makes it fun for added heat getting thrown at it. I am not saying that it is better to use a weapon that can only take out sensitive things, I am saying that a small recoil-less weapon with few moving parts is better in a gravity less vacuum than any propellent based kinetic weapon, atleast if you want it small enough for a single operator in a suit and with minimal mass. Laser powercells would probably have far less mass than an equivalent of propellent based kinetic rounds, and mass is a thing that anyone would have to worry about when in space.

Yes, they do sound fun, dont they? The "classic" space dogfight also sounds like a colossal waste of propellent.

See argument about retaliative velocities. Also add to the fact that too great a difference in velocity means that you would go to different areas very fast, also, 9 miles a second in relation to what? Around an orbital body? If that is the case, than you are going to be falling rather fast. Also, again, computers. Even with a slide rule it would be rather easy to plan shots from one orbiting body to another, such as two ships orbiting a planet at different orbital velocities, inclinations, eccentricities...

-ninja edit-

Shielding is, again, rather hard to do on radiators, which are quite possibly one of the weakest parts of a spacecraft (theoretically at least) due to the fact that you want as much heat radiation as possible for the least mass. Which normally means rather thin things. Which means that the particles carried by a particle beam weapon (which includes lasers, albeit they arent the best examples) would typically be able to damage them quite easily.

[Patrick Hunt]

Duels ain't my characters style, he'd just have him shot and move on.

[Patrick Hunt]

Hey Aseaheru your ship has a small issue. It has 0 maneuvering. It ain't gonna do much without that.

[Aseaheru]

Its also not a combat ship.

[Patrick Hunt]

A 0 in maneuverability is the equivalent of having no engines at all. The ship info says you need 1 minamum in all but computer and special.

With 0 maneuverability your ship can't even take off.

[Aseaheru]

Hang on, let me check.

-edit-

Nope, nothing in the thing talking about the spaceship talking about maneuvering. Shall i quote it for you?

[Patrick Hunt]

First paragraph of ship info says you need 1 in all for the ship to function.

[Aseaheru]

And then in the list of things there are there is nothing about maneuverability.

Your Spaceship:
A cowboy is nothing without a horse, and a Frontiersman is dead without his ship. Each Frontiersman’s ship is unique, not because they are high-quality masterwork equipment, but because the standard ships are so modular that anyone can change them to fit their purpose. Just like you, your ship has stats that must be filled out now. They are a bit simpler, but will affect the outcome of space battles on top of your stats. You have 60 points to spend on your ship, and must have at least one point in each one for your ship to work. Otherwise, there is no maximum that you must have.

Weaponry: How much weaponry your Ship can hold. Your ship starts with enough cheap weapons to fill every slot. If you have 12 points in this stat, you can fit 2 weapons worth 6 points each, 1 weapon that costs 12 points, 1 six pointer and 2 three pointers, etc. You do not need to have every slot filled, but having empty slots provides no benefits.

Size: How big the ship is. Gives passive bonuses to all the other stats, as well as having more room non-mechanically and generally allowing you to do more in it while not in space battles or otherwise using it mechanically. Let’s you fit more armor, bigger engines, more guns, and even better computers. Of course, in return, you are a bit easier to hit. A size 1 ship would essentially be a pod with no room to stand up, while a size 50 ship would have room for everything from a fully stocked kitchen to an exercise room to a pool.

Armor: How well defended your ship is, either by shields or heavy plating. This is rolled to protect you from enemy attacks. Unlike Weaponry, this skill doesn’t require additional components to function and is a natural part of your ship. It automatically acts when you get shot at.
Maneuvering: How well the ship can move, dodge enemy attacks, and generally not stand still. Gives bonuses to your dodge abilities while also making you harder to target in combat. Outside of combat, it shows how gracefully you get around obstacles and move, as well as how fast your ship goes when not using its HR engine.

Computer Systems: How advanced and powerful your computers are. Can give bonuses to the others much like size, but must be activated and has to be rolled. For example, you could order your computer to help calibrate your weapons or divert power to shields, increasing your aim and armor temporarily. Having at least one point lets you do things like access the local internet and communicate, while high levels might even be an advanced AI!  Unlike the others, this is not required.

Special: As I said before, each ship is unique. This stat is open, allowing you to make special additions as you see fit. I will have to approve them, of course, but it adds a personal touch that helps you connect with the machine. Like Computer systems, this is not required, and most NPC ships will be lacking this. When you put points into "Special", you decide what this unique component is and put points into it. For example, you could put "Special: Cloaking Systems 20" to have a powerful cloaking system equipped to your ship. You can have more than one Special, but each one has to be payed for separately.