John Dattalo writes, about cloaking devices:
@:) The idea that we came up with was that a ship that is cloaked can @:) act
just like any other ship except that none of its ships system @:) except for
thrusters are operational.
This reminds me of the system my group is about to start using for FTL entry
and exit. We always found FTL entry and, especially, exit to be a little
clunky as written. In particular, we had problems with "FTL kamikazes" or at
least the threat thereof, and we had one hilarious episode when a damaged
cruiser, whose fleet had just finished delivering a crushing victory, piffled
the entire fleet due to a
slight miscalculation in pre-FTL manouvering (oh, are we using inches
today?). Anyway, while that was all great fun, we got sick of perfectly good
ships getting demolished (for a very interesting look
at this phenomenon, look into C.J. Cheryh's (sp) _Pride_of_Chanur_ and
subsequent books) and we started looking into alternative FTL techniques.
As a hard-core X-Wing and TIE Fighter veteran, I favored the "FTL
makes you go real fast" method, and we have decided to adopt this. I should
point out that we are also going to use a "maximum speed" for ships, above
which they cannot manouver, which will be 5*thrust. The way the FTL works is
this:
Ordering FTL: Any ship with an operational FTL drive may choose to engage FTL
during the movement phase. FTL engagement must be written into the ship's
orders. Manouvering orders may also be written, but these will only be
effectual if the ship moves at less than its maximum speed.
Effects of FTL: A ship moving under FTL moves at double the speed of the
previous turn. While FTL is engaged, none of the ship's systems are functional
except the main engines, which may be used to manouver the ship under the
restrictions given above.
Disengaging FTL: When the FTL system is disengaged (or destroyed), the ship
begins decellerating. Each turn, it moves at half the speed of the previous
turn, until it has reached the velocity at which it was moving before FTL was
engaged. Thrust may be applied during this period to manouver the ship under
the restrictions above.
Entering the board under FTL: A ship entering the board under FTL chooses an
initial speed between 1 and five times its thrust. It enters the board at
(initial speed)*(any power of 2) with FTL disengaged, and it immediately
begins decellerating as described above.
Leaving the board under FTL: There is no specific rule that defines
when a ship attempting to flee under FTL has left the board - this is
left up to the players. One advantage to this system is that it can be used to
rapidly move ships (carriers, for example) around the outskirts of the board.
Because of this, players may consider
allowing small off-board movements as long as the re-entry location of
the ship can be correctly determined. In general, our "minimum" rule is that
when the ship leaves the property line of the building in which the game is
being played, it is out of the combat.
So there's our plan. We have only done a very little work with this so far
(one FTL entry which worked out pretty well) but we think it should be a good
system. We argued (and I argued against) the initial speed thing, so you might
consider having ships decellerate to some multiple of their thrust and be
normally operable there. Also it's not clear whether we want systems to remain
inoperable until after the
ship decellerates to normal speed - this would make FTL entry much
more dangerous but I have a hard time justifying it without static warp
bubbles and whatnot, which I don't like. I like an FTL that just makes you go
REAL fast.
Please comment and feel free to unleash the pdaf on my idea and shoot it down.
> In message <199608131317.JAA05352@sparczilla.East.Sun.COM> you wrote:
> As a hard-core X-Wing and TIE Fighter veteran, I favored the "FTL
Does the ship double its velocity the turn it engages the drives? If
so, it means players can use this to may very short, one-turn hops
to get away from danger, or maybe to position themselves ready for attack.
Unless you are willing to allow this use of the FTL drive, it may be best to
have systems shut down in the first turn, but that velocity only starts
doubling in the second and subsequent turns.
> Leaving the board under FTL: There is no specific rule that defines
Maybe you could have a much larger scale map, which represens a region much
larger than the actual game board. Ships in FTL off this board are placed on
the map, and moved there. You might even have two or more battle zones within
the larger map, with ships FTLing between this zones. Would make for an
interesting scenario, though you'd need several large tables in order to play
it.
> From: Samuel Penn <sam@bifrost.demon.co.uk>
Or, perhaps there is a minimum duration of the FTL effect, given that it
takes some time to fully form the warp bubble/convert all the matter
into
a tachyon beam/break through reality. The effect could be doubling each
turn beginning immediately, but could not be stopped for say, 4 turns (say two
turns to power everything up, and thus turns to shut it back
down and return to normal space-time).
> jjm@zycor.lgc.com writes:
@:)
@:) Or, perhaps there is a minimum duration of the FTL effect, given
@:) that it takes some time to fully form the warp bubble/convert all
@:) the matter into a tachyon beam/break through reality. The effect
@:) could be doubling each turn beginning immediately, but could not @:) be
stopped for say, 4 turns (say two turns to power everything up, @:) and thus
turns to shut it back down and return to normal
@:) space-time).
Hm. I think the idea of not being able to do stuff while your ship is
decellerating is good. However, I can't think of any good justifications. Warp
bubbles, tachyon beams and breaking through reality are all well and good but
to me, that's not what FTL means. To me, FTL means going really fast. I don't
know if it even means
going faster than light - who cares? All you have to do is get
yourself going _really_fast_ and you'll get away from the people who
are shooting at you. That's what FTL means to me. Getting away from the people
who are shooting at me. So while I like the idea of minimum times for the
effect, or the idea that the effect continues not only during the acceleration
phase but also during the decelleration phase, I can't justify it enough to
actually use it.
Excerpts from FT: 19-Aug-96 Re: hyperspace (was: cloaki.. by Joachim H.
- SunSoft@Eas
> @:) Or, perhaps there is a minimum duration of the FTL effect, given
Just hearkening back to one of Timothy Zahn's "Star Wars" novels, Luke shorted
out his hyperspace drive once... I think he was actually rushing it, or
something, but that's a possible effect of stopping your FTL drive short: a
very damaged, if not destroyed, FTL drive. Not much
effect in a one-off, but much more in a campaign game, depending on how
long it might take to fix....
> joachim wrote:
FWIW FTL=Faster Than Light. The idea is any system capable of propelling your
ship faster than light. The game is generic, so this drive can be
anything you want it to be. I prefer jump/displacement drives myself,
based on theoretical physics. You could also say your ship uses some magnetic
harness to latch on to a passing space cow that permeates the membrane between
space and time, only stopping to feed on the radiated remains of space
travellers who thought nuclear weapons had no effect in outer
space. ;);)
> All you have to do is get
If all that matters is going really fast by just hard acceleration while less
than light speed, you will probably not outrun the majority of the weapon
systems available. Not to mention the incredible forces placed on your crew or
the possible effects of your drives output in it's environment(imagine the
target signature generated by reaction mass type drives propelling a few
hundred thousand tons of technology under hard
acceleration or even gravity waves by a gravity drive - it's like
saying,
"Here I am, please shoot me!"). Most FTL drives decribed in sci-fi like
jump drives, warp drives, etc. remove some of the effects of normal space
acceleration like high g-forces, but they tend to have very
undersireable effects when they malfunction.
> That's what FTL means to me. Getting away from
If I use FTL in a FT scenario, I plan to incorporate the FT rules to simulate
that chance of failure when making a hasty departure, otherwise players might
abuse FTL if it was too easy.
Don't forget we give salary increases to executives of corporations that build
REALLY, REALLY bad cars.....(LOL Joachim..)
> Mike Miserendino writes:
@:) >To me, FTL means going really fast.
@:)
@:) I prefer jump/displacement drives myself, based on theoretical
@:) physics.
While jump drives or jump points make for great special effects, I've never
cared much for the idea in games. Well, actually I never
thought about it much until I played X-Wing, in which no spacecraft is
ever travelling extradimensionally in any important sense. Sure, we can assume
that Star Wars ships travel through "hyperspace" and that that is something
different from normal space but: they get there the normal way, by speeding
up. I like that because it means they can be shot at on the way out, while at
the same time it doesn't introduce any weirdness like catastropic FTL effect
damage.
@:) >All you have to do is get yourself going _really_fast_ and you'll
@:) >get away from the people who are shooting at you.
@:)
@:) If all that matters is going really fast by just hard acceleration while
@:) less than light speed, you will probably not outrun the majority of the
@:) weapon systems available.
Oh, I disagree! Let's say you could accelerate yourself by, hm,
2000 mph/s. You've just outrun a bullet (Paul or other tank
afficionado please correct me if I'm wrong) and the Kravak are out of
the game. In FT terms, if you can accelerate by 36 m.u./turn, you can
outrun almost anything. In the real world, I would think that you
might not be able to out-accelerate a laser or other beam weapon but I
bet you could get outside its effective range (or targeting range) pretty
well. Modern laser and particle weapons have pathetic ranges
and even the best theoretical ones within technological reach (H-bomb
powered X-ray lasers and so forth) dissapate extremely quickly. So
anyway I bet you could outrun pretty much anything, if you could just run fast
enough, but not (yet) faster than light.
@:) Not to mention the incredible forces placed on your crew
Yeah, well this is a good point but that's why ships carry so many
people - so that when half of them get crushed there are still enough
left to run the thing. The cap'n has a _really_ cushy chair, of
course.
@:) or the possible effects of your drives output in it's @:) environment
What's with the people on this list? First it's "FT is destroying the natural
splendor of our forests" and now it's "FTL is destroying our space
environment"! Well, I know there are a lot of Brits on this list and I can't
speak for them, but here in AMERICA we eat enough McDonald's to pretty much
insure that we won't have to live through the environmental mess we're
creating for our children to clean up. I propose the same culture for my FT
universe, so our drives can be as dirty as we want. By the way, we impose a
tax on starships that get better than 20mpg.
@:) Most FTL drives decribed in sci-fi like jump drives, warp drives,
@:) etc. remove some of the effects of normal space acceleration like
@:) high g-forces, but they tend to have very undersireable effects
@:) when they malfunction.
This is a good point, and it might be interesting to include a
possible failure of some kind of anti-inertial field.
@:) >That's what FTL means to me.
@:)
@:) If I use FTL in a FT scenario, I plan to incorporate the FT rules @:) to
simulate that chance of failure when making a hasty departure, @:) otherwise
players might abuse FTL if it was too easy.
Yeah, but we've done a fair amount of FTL and we have not been impressed by
the FT rules. The first couple of times your fleet destroys itself because you
miscalculated a turn are fun, but that wears thin after a while. The risks for
getting a heavily damaged ship out of formation and into FTL turned out to be
so great that we pretty much stopped using it. Since we hate not using all
available rules:) we felt forced to come up with a replacement. I would like
to know whether anybody else finds the FTL rules a bit too destructive
- maybe we just had a bunch of statistical flukes and gave up on it
too soon?
On Tue, 20 Aug 1996 15:24:36 -0400 (EDT) Mike Miserendino
> <phddms1@cris.com> writes:
Unfortunately, it doesn't do Star Wars justice. I look to the preparations for
the last battle in ROTJ... 36 fighters FTL in very close proximity, followed
hotly by 25 frigates, cruisers and capitol ships...then all emerge almost all
on top of one another. In SW, I know the main thing is no massive gravitic
bodies in your flight path... that's why Interdictor cruisers work so well.
We had a battle where a rebel transport was being attacked and it went to FTL
... in FT terms it took forever (2 turns)... but in SW, they warm and zooooom
... c'ya.
Any ideas?
In message <199608201924.PAA10801@cliff.cris.com> Mike Miserendino wrote:
> joachim wrote:
And I prefer Traversable Wormholes (ie neither end of the wormhole can be
moved at FTL velocities, so initial exploration is slow, and you can get all
sorts of nice time dilation effects, but I
digress...).
But yes, I understand what Joachim means - as long as it goes fast,
who cares just how fast.
> You could also say your ship [...] latch on to a passing space cow
My favourite name is "The Really Fast Drive Despite What The Nice Mr Einstein
Said". Hmm... Anyone built Full Thrust ships out of Lego? Anyway...
> If all that matters is going really fast by just hard acceleration
You may not outrun individual laser pulses, but you will get out of their
effective range, which is what really counts.
Not to mention the incredible forces placed on
> your crew or the possible effects of your drives output in it's
In FT though, it matters not a whit. Stealth doesn't affect how easy you are
to be hit. In reality, the matter is quite different, but even a moderate
space drive is going to put out a large enough signature to be detected if you
are within weapon range.
> >That's what FTL means to me. Getting away from
If you want to be able to use FTL to do that, then the system is fine as it
stands. I prefer it to be not so easy to get out of a tight situation. People
then think harder about avoiding getting into such situations, and a well
thought out surprise attack isn't ruined when the victims FTL out after the
first turn.
In message <199608211123.HAA05087@sparczilla.East.Sun.COM> Joachim wrote:
> What's with the people on this list? First it's "FT is destroying
All together now, one... two... three....
ORION!!!!!
(for those that don't know, Orion was a drive system tested (*) by NASA back
in the 60s. Basically, you take a great big metal plate, and stick the life
support stuff on one side (with *lots* of suspension between the two). Then
you drop nukes out the back behind the plate. The force of the explosion on
the plate pushes the spaceship forward. It would have worked damn well (I
think it's one of the few drives we could build with near current technology
that could provide a sustained 1g acceleration), except some stupid world
leaders decided to forbid the use of nuclear weapons in space).
(*): NASAs experiments were with chemical explosives, for those of you who are
worried about the environment.:)
> joachim wrote:
Well I was refering to theories, not special effects.
> I've never cared much for the idea in games. Well, actually I never
When you mention "speeding up" as per SW, it seems you're referring to the
special effect in the film. The book describes this differently. You could
think of the appearance of the ship speeding up as it's shadow as it passes
into hyperspace (time dilation effect). In this case, you don't actually have
a target, just a ghost.
> @:) If all that matters is going really fast by just hard acceleration
Speeding up fast enough in normal space to outrun directed energy weapons is
a bit far-fetched. If you can outrun a beam battery, bearing on your
aft at short range, then you are probably running FTL. Otherwise, a reality
check might be in store for your crew. Even a mass driver round might out
accelerate your ship before it achieves its final velocity.
> In the real world, I would think that you
This is mainly due to current targeting and focusing systems, not weapon
range.
> and even the best theoretical ones within technological reach (H-bomb
The majority of weapon systems in FT are directed energy weapons. Now if you
are accelerating really fast, but not FTL, you will NOT outrun the weapon's
output. You might get lucky and pick a direction that the enemy's targeting
system did not predict, but chances are, if technology exists for you to
accelerate at such ludicrous speeds in normal space (and totally
oblivious to say coping with high-g accels on your crew, or getting
whacked by a frozen oscar meyer weiner in your path of acceleration, etc.) an
offensive targeting system will be available to predict your path the second
you light up and place a few gigawatts of destructive energy in a merging path
with you.
Another point to make is that if your ship is accelerating to a high speed,
even though it might be very fast, it is still accelerating. You don't have
the full velocity achieved until after you have actually accelerated. So at
the start of your move, you would only be moving at a fraction of your total
final velocity, not the full amount! If you are using some ridiculus
inertialess drive or something forget the above.
> Yeah, well this is a good point but that's why ships carry so many
I think you might need to use ships full of clones the way you go through crew
members.;)
> @:) or the possible effects of your drives output in it's
Destroying vacuum??? Well you could take the argument of warp technology
rippping space or something, but it was meant as a result of how easy your
ship might be to target when you maximize your drives output.
> This is a good point, and it might be interesting to include a
Well, since you don't really do much with crews outside of damage control
parties, this would probably be useless. However, the effects on equipment
might be more relevant to the game mechanics as the FTL effects imply.
> The risks for getting a heavily damaged
I usually don't use them in demo games for just that reason, but with more
experienced players it demands the use of better tactics.
> Paul wrote:
> We had a battle where a rebel transport was being attacked and it went
In SW, they still took time to compute the flight path, otherwise they might
pass through a gravity well.
> Any ideas?
For SW, it might work better in a campaign setting, where the ship might not
end up where it intended to go if insufficient time was allotted to calculate
the jump.
In a message dated 96-08-21 19:27:52 EDT, you write:
<< frozen oscar meyer weiner >>
Frozen Wiener Scatter Mine
Fires a spray of 1kg sausage links at high velocity.
Range 2"
Damage 1/2 D6 (Negated by Shields, Fighter groups lose 1/2 D6 models)
Attacks during fighter phase all ship(s) within range. Points cost 2, Mass 1
each Symbol, a hot dog & bun on the SR.Minsweepers will not detect or clear
FWSMs
During the relief of Vienna IV a damaged blockade runner was forced out of
it's convoy and pursued by a number of small escorts, the 'runner was carrying
no amaments of it's own, having been stripped for speed and cargo capacity. It
had in it's holds only a supply of frozen food and military demolitions
charges. Thinking fast, the ship's cargo master began maglocking half ton
cargo pods of frozen food and demo charges together, along with a crude
proximity fuse. Out the hatch these went, providing the pursuing ships with a
nasty surprise. Ironically, the ship was destroyed when one of the fuses
detonated prematurely while being manhandled out of the hold.
Enjoy,
Gene
> In message <19960821.191300.67@bifrost.demon.co.uk> Samuel Penn writes:
> My favourite name is "The Really Fast Drive Despite What The Nice Mr
Personally I like the "Free Lunch Drive".
> Mike Miserendino writes:
@:) > While jump drives or jump points make for great special effects,
@:)
@:) Well I was refering to theories, not special effects.
I'm not sure which one there are more of!
@:) When you mention "speeding up" as per SW, it seems you're @:) referring to
the special effect in the film. The book describes @:) this differently. You
could think of the appearance of the ship @:) speeding up as it's shadow as it
passes into hyperspace (time @:) dilation effect). In this case, you don't
actually have a target, @:) just a ghost.
That's interesting, although I guess it makes sense. Well, so much for Star
Wars compatibility, I guess. I still like speeding up.
@:) Speeding up fast enough in normal space to outrun directed energy
@:) weapons is a bit far-fetched.
Since you can't outrun light in normal space, whether you can avoid a directed
energy weapon really depends on your estimation of future targeting systems
and beam attenuation over distance. That's all pretty speculative since we
don't have any real world examples (well none that don't suck anyway).
@:) >I bet you could get outside [a laser's] effective range (or @:)
>targeting range) pretty well.
@:)
@:) This is mainly due to current targeting and focusing systems, not @:)
weapon range.
I don't know what kind of theoretical limits have been proposed for
large-scale laser focusing systems, but I guess since we're talking
about engines with acceleration that's just plain goofy, we can assume
super high-quality targeting systems and super long-range lasers. I
prefer to imagine the beam weapons of the future being some non-laser
weapon that somehow manages to do all the amazing things that phasers
and blasters and pulse cannons and what-have-you do.
@:) The majority of weapon systems in FT are directed energy weapons. @:) Now
if you are accelerating really fast, but not FTL, you will NOT @:) outrun the
weapon's output. You might get lucky and pick a @:) direction that the enemy's
targeting system did not predict
Or get so far away so fast that you're too small to hit. Like
better than 36 m.u./turn/turn.
@:) chances are, if technology exists for you to accelerate at such @:)
ludicrous speeds in normal space (and totally oblivious to say
@:) coping with high-g accels on your crew, or getting whacked by a
@:) frozen oscar meyer weiner in your path of acceleration
Who told you about that wiener?! That was supposed to be confidential!!
@:) an offensive targeting system will be available to predict your @:) path
the second you light up and place a few gigawatts of @:) destructive energy in
a merging path with you.
Well, I can see it but I don't think I can quite suspend my disbelief in that
direction. Sure, that could happen but it just doesn't agree with me.
@:) Another point to make is that if your ship is accelerating to a @:) high
speed, even though it might be very fast, it is still @:) accelerating. You
don't have the full velocity achieved until @:) after you have actually
accelerated. So at the start of your @:) move, you would only be moving at a
fraction of your total final @:) velocity, not the full amount! If you are
using some ridiculus @:) inertialess drive or something forget the above.
Well we're not really and this is not only a good point but an important one.
Let's say you're commanding a typical dreadnought.
Mass 80-100, 10-15 A batteries, 8 PDAF and ... thrust 2. Ahem. Well,
so here you are and you're getting the piss knocked out of you by the local
torpedo cruisers and it's time to go. You are manouvering at the blisteringly
fast speed of 8. You seat yourself in your really cushy captain's chair, set
clone production to FULL and engage your
incredibly gizmonic high-speed drive. Come next turn you are now
whizzing along at the barely legal speed of... 16. Ooh, better wear a helmet
if you're going that fast. The cruisers behind you are doing 12 which means
you've gained four inches on them so their torpedoes can probably still hit
you. Worse, now your shields are down and you probably still have three or
four turns left before you get into the bedroom (or kitchen, depending on
which way you're fleeing) and actually get off the board. Youch! You're toast
dude. So while people are in fact allowed to leave the game by using this
drive system, it ain't easy. Heavy ships in particular end up with a maximum
first turn acceleration (10) that is only slightly better than an escort's
likely normal acceleration (8). So I still predict a fair amount of bloodshed.
@:) > Yeah, well this is a good point but that's why ships carry so
@:) >many people - so that when half of them get crushed there are
@:) >still enough left to run the thing. The cap'n has a _really_
@:) >cushy chair, of course.
@:)
@:) I think you might need to use ships full of clones the way you go through
@:) crew members.;)
Maybe this explains that mysterious term "clone war"? No, actually, in another
tribute to 20th century American society, our crew members all wear official
Rollerblade brand helmets and knee and ankle protectors. Once equipped with
these miracles of modern protective science, being hurled across a room under
a few 1000 gs of acceleration hardly even fazes them.
@:) >This is a good point, and it might be interesting to include a
@:) >possible failure of some kind of anti-inertial field.
@:)
@:) Well, since you don't really do much with crews outside of damage @:)
control parties, this would probably be useless. However, the @:) effects on
equipment might be more relevant to the game mechanics @:) as the FTL effects
imply.
Destroying equipment could be good (eg take damage as for a row for every turn
you are FTLing without a functional FTL drive). I included an important
admiral as a system in a recent scenario since one of the goals was to kill
him This could be done more generally by having a
captain system - if it's destroyed the ship is out of control for a
turn or something.
@:) > [ FTL rules make things blow up a lot]
@:)
@:) I usually don't use them in demo games for just that reason, but @:) with
more experienced players it demands the use of better @:) tactics.
I am not one of those who find the FT movement system totally... pleasant but
I think I could live with that aspect of it. We had a hard time coming up with
a better way of preventing kamikaze attacks than just saying "you can't do
that". In general I don't think any of us in my group are into the "big
effect" style FTL, where ships can damage other ships far away with their FTL
systems.
Again, for all those who haven't read this stuff, you might want to check out
the Pride of Chanur et al for some cool FTL ideas. In particular, one (and
only one) species in that series has the ability to tow ships through FTL.
Unfortunately, since no one can figure out how to communicate with them,
understandings lead to unfortunate abductions. To their credit, the K'nnn
understand the concept of
trade well enough that they never fail to leave, well, _something_
behind in return for the equipment and possibly people they took away.
> Samuel Penn writes:
@:) In message <199608201924.PAA10801@cliff.cris.com> Mike Miserendino wrote:
@:)
@:) My favourite name is "The Really Fast Drive Despite What The Nice @:) Mr
Einstein Said". Hmm... Anyone built Full Thrust ships out of @:) Lego?
Anyway...
^^^^
I have not but it certainly has occurred to me. My only problem is that for
complicated ships with a lot of systems, lego models would tend towards the
large. One could imagine the ever popular Galaxy Explorer, for example, being
a large capital ship, but it's a good 8 inches long. I don't think I can find
room to manouver something that large. If a large arena (basketball court
sized, perhaps) were available and I could do movement in feet, I think lego
would work out quite well.
Oh, by the way, Lego is one of the biggest Internet Legal Wusses around so you
probably shouldn't buy their stuff anyway (but it is tres cool). I will
probably be sued by them for not using TM in this message.
> Sometime in the past, you wrote:
}
> }Samuel Penn writes:
}@:) In message <199608201924.PAA10801@cliff.cris.com> Mike Miserendino wrote:
}@:)
}@:) My favourite name is "The Really Fast Drive Despite What The Nice}@:) Mr
Einstein Said". Hmm... Anyone built Full Thrust ships out of
}@:) Lego? Anyway...
} ^^^^
}
} I have not but it certainly has occurred to me. My only problem is}that for
complicated ships with a lot of systems, lego models would}tend towards the
large.
I have done this. I did not use the Lego designs, tho. I took my old stuff
(from when space lego was first released) as well as my little
brother's stuff and built non-symmetrical stuff around different parts.
My escorts usually had 6-10 small pieces, and were about an inch long.
Cruisers were up to double that. Capitals were about 3 inches long
with 25-40 different parts. I also used parts that had holes in it
and plugged the GW flying hex bases in them, which made for a solid base.
I tried to represent different systems with the parts, and when a system was
damaged, I removed the part. When the ship was destroyed, I broke it into its
pieces and left a debris field behind.
The fleet's race was called the Lorg, a combination of Lego and Borg...
> Gene wrote:
Oh no! The weiner weapons strike again!;)
> Sam wrote:
Don't forget NERVA. ORION had many faults that they did not know how to
correct then and probably don't know now. Such as shock and stress over
prolonged pulses, not to mention radiation problems. NERVA or Nuclear Engine
for Rocket Vehicle Application, provided the first true nuclear engine using
controlled nuclear reactions for output. Unfortunately, it is difficult to
test such devices on Earth, due to regulations and such. However, nuclear
reactors are currently used in some spacecraft. There is hope to allow future
incorporation into propulsion systems, such as from the folks responsible for
the Daedelus and Enzman starship designs.
On Wed, 21 Aug 1996 19:26:50 -0400 (EDT) Mike Miserendino
> <phddms1@cris.com> writes:
> In SW, they still took time to compute the flight path, otherwise they
Usually (at least in all the things I have seen, the Rebels, or any ship
jumping into combat would have an entry plot as well as an exit plot
programmed in before the initial jump was made... I agree that jumping on the
fly is a problem...
> joachim wrote:
Good point!;)
> Since you can't outrun light in normal space, whether you can avoid
Nope. Just that your ship is running slower than lightspeed and the discharge
of the energy weapon behind you is at lightspeed.
> @:) This is mainly due to current targeting and focusing systems, not
Yep. Blast ships traveling below lightspeed. The main problem is targeting,
not range or time to impact.
> @:) an offensive targeting system will be available to predict your
No problem. Use what you like. I just prefer hard science rather than fantasy.
> actually get off the board. Youch! You're toast dude. So while
That's been the point I've been trying to make all along. You can run, but not
completely outrun the incoming fire.
> Destroying equipment could be good (eg take damage as for a row for
OK, why not make the turbo-flush a system as well. Any hit, reduces all
rolls to hit by -1, indicating the crews uncomfortatable disposition
with not having a working crapper.
Samuel Penn <sam@bifrost.demon.co.uk> asked:
> Hmm... Anyone built Full Thrust ships out of Lego?
:: raises hand :: Uh, I'm guilty! ;)
I don't own any ship minis, so I build LEGO *brand blocks* starships when we
play. Of course, we've only played a couple of times. But, I don't see any
point to buying them, the playing is more than painting.
We kept them simple - three of the "4 length" rectangles in a T
structure was the smallest warship, and they expanded up from there.
Besides, it brings back memories of starship battles on the floor of my
bedroom in grade school - LEGO *brand blocks* rule! Of course, they are
jealously protective of the copyright, hence the *extra*.;)
Sometimes, you just need to chill out...
Date sent: 23-AUG-1996 09:10:28
> Don't forget NERVA. ORION had many faults that they did not know how
> Mike Miserendino
NERVA is having something of a renaissance and is being investigated as the
power source for the maned Mars mission. It should cut the journey time down
from 18 months down to 2 or 3. This is highly desirable as it reduces the time
the crew are exposed to cosmic radiation.
> Mike writes:
> However, nuclear reactors are currently used in some spacecraft.
Current spacecraft? Which ones?
> There is hope to allow future incorporation into propulsion systems,
How do they plan to incorporate this? The idea of controlled nuclear
explosions sounds a bit dicey to me, and I can't imagine such a ship having a
great deal of combat maneuverability! Nuclear power is great for generating
large, sustained amounts of steam/electricity without the need for
refueling. But unless you can use electricity to generate gravitic fields or
some such,
how do you translate this into thrust? Most sci-fi authors skip over
this one
and just say "the ship is powered by matter-antimatter engines" or some
such.
Scott Field
> FieldScott@aol.com writes:
@:)
@:) > However, nuclear reactors are currently used in some spacecraft.
@:)
@:) Current spacecraft? Which ones?
Only russian ones, I think, but I'll let Mike answer that.
@:) > There is hope to allow future incorporation into propulsion @:) >
systems, such as from the folks responsible for the Daedelus @:) > and Enzman
starship designs.
@:)
@:) How do they plan to incorporate this? The idea of controlled @:) nuclear
explosions sounds a bit dicey to me, and I can't imagine @:) such a ship
having a great deal of combat maneuverability!
Yeah, that idea seems a little silly to me too. Not that it wouldn't work,
just that it's silly.
@:) Nuclear power is great for generating large, sustained amounts of
@:) steam/electricity without the need for refueling.
It's also good for heating up stuff that will then throw itself out the back
end of your rocket. And while it's doing this, it is also being enormously
more efficient than the usual chemical reactions that power everyday rockets.
Although I guess solar power is good enough, you could also tack a reactor
onto an ion engine and have a spacecraft that could go more or less anywhere
(if you had the time to wait for it to get there) because of its incredible
fuel economy.
@:) But unless you can use electricity to generate gravitic fields or
@:) some such, how do you translate this into thrust? Most sci-fi
@:) authors skip over this one and just say "the ship is powered by
@:) matter-antimatter engines" or some such.
Well, matter-antimatter is a step up from nuclear power. The only
plausible idea I've heard so far is very similar to the nuclear rocket
idea - you take a (very) small amount of antimatter and inject it into
a large amount of normal matter and the mixture gets very hot and fires out of
the back of your rocket again.
> Scott Field wrote:
In a variety of probes and satellites.
> There is hope to allow future incorporation into propulsion systems,
It operated in a fashion similar to a chemical engine, focusing the reaction
from a combustion chamber with an exhaust nozzle. The power was able to be
controlled, while providing higher thrust ratings than conventional chemical
engines.
> Most sci-fi authors skip over this one
MAM engines would be great if they can only produce anti-matter in
larger quantities.
> FieldScott@aol.com writes:
Pioneers 10 & 11, Voyagers 1 & 2, Galeleo, basicaly, anything headed into
the outer solar system - the sunlight isn't strong enough for solar
panels to be practical beyond (I think) the orbit of Mars. Actually, "Nuclear
reactor" could be a bit of a misleading term since it conjours up a picture of
a big
building putting out mega-Watts of power, whereas the
radio-thermo-isotope
generators (RTGs) used on spacecraft are much smaller, with power outputs
of a few hundred Watts - their big advantage is that they keep working
for decades (the Voyagers are still going...)
[I think Mike is talking about a NERVA style nuclear rocket rather than
an Orion/Daedalus style nuclear pulse drive]
> > There is hope to allow future incorporation into propulsion
The people behind Daedalus were the BIS (British Interplanetary Society).
Never heard of Enzman - what is it ?
> How do they plan to incorporate this? The idea of controlled nuclear
It's hard to imagine any realistic spacecraft having a great deal of combat
maneuverability.
> Nuclear power is great for generating
Actually nuclear power is great for generating large amounts of HEAT. Ground
based nuclear power plants use this to heat water of gas and use the resulting
steam or high preasure gas to drive turbines to produce electricity. There's
no reason why you can't pump water through the core, let the core heat it into
high preasure steam, and allow the steam
to escape through the back of your ship - and there you have it: THRUST
> Alun Thomas writes:
@:)
> @:) FieldScott@aol.com writes:
@:) >
> @:) > Mike writes:
@:) >
@:) > > However, nuclear reactors are currently used in some spacecraft.
@:) > Current spacecraft? Which ones?
@:)
@:) Pioneers 10 & 11, Voyagers 1 & 2, Galeleo, basicaly, anything
@:) headed into the outer solar system - the sunlight isn't strong
@:) enough for solar panels to be practical beyond (I think) the orbit @:) of
Mars. Actually, "Nuclear reactor" could be a bit of a @:) misleading term
since it conjours up a picture of a big building
@:) putting out mega-Watts of power, whereas the radio-thermo-isotope
@:) generators (RTGs) used on spacecraft are much smaller, with power
@:) outputs of a few hundred Watts - their big advantage is that they
@:) keep working for decades (the Voyagers are still going...)
Actually, I don't know whether RTGs really qualify as "reactors"
since there isn't really a reaction going on - it's just a lump of
radioactive material decaying and generating heat. I believe the Soviets have
lofted some satellites with real working nuclear fission reactors on board. At
any rate I remember people arguing about that on sci.space some time ago.
> Alun writes:
> > > However, nuclear reactors are currently used in some spacecraft.
OK, I'm caught up now. I wasn't thinking of RTGs as reactors; I was thinking
about something powerful enough to power a manned ship.
> > How do they plan to incorporate this? The idea of controlled
Touche.
> > Nuclear power is great for generating
Fine, get technical on me! ;-) That was what I meant, but thanks for
clarifying. Nuclear ships use the same principle, with steam driving the prop,
right?
> There's no reason why you can't pump water through the
THRUST
Very true, but then you still have an expendable fuel: water! When you run low
on water, you have to head back to dock. And since water can't be compressed,
a large chunk of your mass is going to be taken up with water storage. I'm
trying to dream up a system that doesn't require frequent
re-fueling.
Scott
"One of the very nicest things about life is the way we must regularly stop
whatever we are doing and devote our attention to eating." --
Luciano Pavarotti
> FieldScott@aol.com writes:
@:)
@:) > There's no reason why you can't pump water through the core, @:) > let
the core heat it into high preasure steam, and allow the
@:) > steam to escape through the back of your ship - and there you
@:) > have it: THRUST
@:)
@:) Very true, but then you still have an expendable fuel: water! When @:) you
run low on water, you have to head back to dock. And since @:) water can't be
compressed, a large chunk of your mass is going to @:) be taken up with water
storage. I'm trying to dream up a system
@:) that doesn't require frequent re-fueling.
Well NASA has been thinking about the same stuff and they came up with the ion
engine (maybe also called something like the electric propulsion system?)
which is about as close to what you're asking about as we currently have. This
system uses an electric field (there's a magnetic field variant that may
actually be more useful) to propel ionized particles out the back of the
spacecraft, generating thrust. The nice thing about it is that, since the
particles are expelled at extremely high velocities (compared with a
traditional rocket engine) the engine is quite fuel efficient. The first probe
scheduled to use it (Argh my browser isn't getting through to the NASA site
and I forgot which probe it is!) is supposed to carry eighty pounds (kilos?)
of fuel which was supposed to be enough for several years of operation.
The downside to the ion engine, despite Mr.Lucas' wishful thinking, is that
they generate very little thrust. That means that ships propelled by them will
accelerate very, very, slowly. The theory is that you turn the engine on at
the start of your trip and you turn it off when you get there and it's running
the whole time. This in contrast to a chemical rocket engine, which is turned
on once at the beginning of the trip, for maybe a minute or two, and then once
again at the end, again for around a minute. Each time they're on, they
provide a huge kick to the spacecraft.
So anyway, check out www.nasa.gov and look around till you find the ion engine
site. They have some great pictures of the thing
running - no flame or anything, just this eerie blue glow. Not
entirely unlike the engines on Star Wars vehicles, but a lot dimmer.
Excerpts from FT: 27-Aug-96 Re: hyperspace (was: cloaki.. by Joachim H.
- SunSoft@Eas
> Actually, I don't know whether RTGs really qualify as "reactors"
Yes, the Soviets did launch actual reactors... they built "do everything"
satellites that couldn't get enough power out of RTGs, so they used reactors.
One of 'em came down in Canada, in the early 70s I think, and caused quite a
fuss. If I recall correctly, that's also about the time the UN started working
on "who owns the space (object)" laws, which in the end meant that yes, the
Sovs *did* have to pay for the cleanup....
> FieldScott@aol.com writes:
In my last mailing to the list I described (what I thought) was an engine
based on radioactive decay. I'm pretty sure this is what I was
thinking of. I guess I'm just a little bit scatter-brained today :-)
> On 22 Aug 1996, John Phelps wrote:
> Samuel Penn <sam@bifrost.demon.co.uk> asked:
Same with us. We desperately wanted to try the rules out, so we
played with Lego-ships covered with foil. Looked kinda strange, but hey,
what the hell. Beats cardboard any day... Or something...
"Nuclear ships use the same principle, with steam driving the prop, right?"
Yep. Gotta dig the concept of a hi tech nuclear reactor finely balanced and
designed coupled with a steam engine...
-Mike