G'day guys,
> The biggest problem I have with that is Screens (I'd try and suggest
I knew you guys would come and point out how to make "screen modules",
unfortunately that wasn't what I meant (yeah I know I need to be clearer, but
my Mum wasn't a bubble dancer..);)
As soon as I suggested modular designs down here last year the first response
I got was "well screens are out becuase they'd have to be from the main ship
to make sure the envelope works properly, putting them on a module is pretty
dodgy" <i.e. not allowed>. OK that's only one PSB on the situation, but it was
interesting to note that none of you have that same
opinion (or maybe I should day hang-up ;) ). Is that because you think
screens work differently, you don't think it matters or you don't really care
lets just go play for heavens sakes (;))?
Cheers
Beth
Beth used lots of idioms while discussing screens and modules, all of which
have been mercilessly snipped.
I proposed, some time ago, freighter which could operate as armed merchantmen
with the addition of weapons modules. Each module was, IIRC, mass 14, which
included 1Mass for drive (to power systems), and IIRC 3 Mass for Hull, leaving
10 mass
available for weapons. You could make a screen/defense module
with, say, 5 Mass devoted to screens--if you didn't need that
much, too bad, that's the price you pay for modularization.
Alternately, the way some Real Life navies approach the problem
is to make standard weapon/system mounts and spaces, and build
the ship so you can install whatever payload you wish. You might have a
frigate with, say, 5 interchangeable mass. Again, though, you waste some space
that you could have used if you'd had a permanent installation designed for
that application.
G'day Laserlight,
> Beth used lots of idioms while discussing screens and modules,
Think of it as exorcising the email equivalent of a terrible accent;)
> I proposed, some time ago, freighter which could operate as
All of which looks grand and very sensible, but doesn't really answer my
question about how you think screens may even vaguely work;)
> Alternately, the way some Real Life navies approach the problem
Also sounds like a good idea and is how I imagined the various variants of the
FB designs had come about (sorta anyway).
Cheers
Beth - who will endeavour to be more idiom free for your convenience ;)
> Laserlight wrote:
> Alternately, the way some Real Life navies approach the problem
...like the OU River class modular Patrol Craft, on the list of designs.
It's a bit more sophisticated, as it has Thrust-6 without a weapons bay
fitted, Thrust-4 with. The weapons bay has room for 8 mass of weapons.
In a message dated 1/10/00 9:21:02 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au writes:
> G'day Laserlight,
Here's my try at how screens work--since beams can be defined as charged
particle beams (I am assuming electron, since that's easier to go FAST) which
is why they can casue widespread system failures, then screens could be some
sort of Faraday Field/Cage or some other electro-magnetic mumbo-jumbo.
So,
that means the shape of the field could vary from "along ship skin/hull
(via embedded network)" or "100 meter circle centered on Generator" or
anything in between.
Just a thought.
Rob
G'day Rob,
> Here's my try at how screens work--since beams can be defined as
which
> is why they can casue widespread system failures, then screens could be
OK that sounds reasonable.
> So, that means the shape of the field could vary from "along ship
Which is what Derek was thinking of.
> or "100 meter circle centered on Generator" or anything in
Which also sounds good - though it'd be interesting to see what happened
if the spheres of ships interpenetrated;)
Best bit is depending on which system your nation went with it'd cover both
options of allowed/not-allowed on modules - great thinking!
;)
Cheers
Beth
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, Beth Fulton wrote:
> Which also sounds good - though it'd be interesting to see what
I rather like Ken Kato's use of screens in his books on Colonial Expansion.
He makes use of the concept that interlocking fields reinforce each other and
make a stronger whole. Ships tend to use beams, but the American traders bring
a new weapon on the scene, a mass driver that fires nasty particles of
superdense material (albiet small) that is quite hard on the opposing ships
and completely ignores shields.
G'day Ryan,
> Which also sounds good - though it'd be interesting to see what
I like the sound of that too, though its probably way too small for FT
scale - just have to keep it as a tidbit for when imagining what it
'really' looked like;)
Cheers
Beth
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, Beth Fulton wrote:
> I like the sound of that too, though its probably way too small for FT
The books are an interesting read, I've not tracked down the third volume yet,
but I seem to recall that the first book is called A Rage in Heaven.
It has the galaxy in a similar sort of arrangement to the GZG-verse.
Just less organized and even more fractionalized. Japan has become a major
power and has reverted to a more feudal stance. China is weak. America is
somewhat nascient in power, but ready to wax to power again. Not unlike the
Pre WWII period in part.
In a message dated 1/11/2000 3:31:56 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> monty@arcadia.turner.com writes:
> He makes use of the concept that interlocking fields reinforce each
Hmm, sounds like the Kra'Vak Rail Guns...
-Stephen
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 RWHofrich@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 1/10/00 9:21:02 PM Eastern Standard Time,
speed isn't necessarily good; if they go faster, they suffer more from
magnetic fields (the force on a moving charge in a magnetic field is
proportional to its speed, as well as to its charge and the field strength),
plus electrons are lighter than, say, protons or ions, so they are going to
get knocked about more than other particles by the same forces; both of these
things make electron beams easier to deflect than
proton/ion beams.
> which
afaik, a Faraday cage is a structure built of metal (or some other conductor),
through which radio waves cannot pass (sort of); i'm not sure wrapping a ship
in a big copper cage is exactly what many people think of when they ponder
screens!:)
but what i think is being got at here is the idea of some sort of
electromagnetic field around the ship, which disrupts charged particle beams.
if the beam is electrons, charging the ship negatively should do it; if it's
protons, positively (it may be that the charge you need to be effective is so
big it would make life on the ship hard, though!).
i favour some sort of oscillating (call it 'non-Maxwellian', it sounds
cooler) magnetic field myself. a similar sort of thing is used in (wait for
it) quadrupole magnetic lenses, used to focus ion beams in, amongst other
things, mass spectrometers (you learn some seriously random things on a
biochemistry course, i tell you:(); it should thus be possible to
build some sort of 'anti-lens' employing similar principles which
disrupts ion beams moving through its field. i'm not sure how you'd screen the
ship from the effects, though; you might be able to arrange the generators so
that the field over the ship was zero or weak, and there was only a strong
field in the area around it.
> So,
i'll drink to that.
tom
In a message dated 1/12/00 7:35:26 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> thomas.anderson@univ.ox.ac.uk writes:
> speed isn't necessarily good; if they go faster, they suffer more from
Well, I think that in the case of space combat, where we are talking really
big ranges (and targets that move fast to boot), speed is critical in a
weapon that is not self-guiding. Remember, you have that speed-of-light
delay (2 x) when using radar to receive info on the position of your target
(not to mention processor time, but we'll skip over that). Then weapon
alignment time, then the time the "beam" takes to reach the area that the
target should be in, assuming your computers have correctly guessed its
probable manuevers in the meantime. Until you get fairly close, then the
heavier/slower weapons could come in really handy.
On the other hand, what's the point of firing something that won't cause the
other guy any damage? Oh well, them's the breaks I guess.
Rob
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 RWHofrich@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 1/12/00 7:35:26 PM Eastern Standard Time,
exactly - an unguided weapon which travels at 1% of the speed of light
is no use over lightsecond ranges, so you want a fast beam. otoh, a weapon
which will hit the target but not do anything is also no use. it's all about
tradeoffs.
tom
Place a field of metalic dust around the ship and maintain it with a magnetic
field, resupply the field as it is diminished. Lasers, charged particles and
munitions will hit, scatter or be destroyed as they impact the particle field.
Computer controls on the field can concentrate the field density along the
threat axis as well as guide where reinforcing material is required.
That's how they explained screens in Traveller:2300. Other versions used sand
casters which were not suspended by fields. Fun reading.
Mike
Michael Miserendino Senior Software Engineer Lincoln Re