Vacuum

2 posts ยท Apr 13 1999 to Apr 13 1999

From: djwj <djwj@e...>

Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 10:20:43 -0600

Subject: Re: Vacuum

> C. Downes-Ward wrote:

> I did some thinking on this some time ago, based on the way that

one range band closer would be more accurate. Gravity has as much affect on a
modern projectile as air resistance, maybe even more. Oerjan Ohlson probably
would know more specifics on that than me.

> and HEL's as if they were one size class bigger.

changing the validities to: red and yellow (red v.s. abalative) would produce
a more consistant increase in power. The class 1 HEL using the previous
suggestion would gain 100% of it's firepower while a class 5 would gain only
20%

> Using the Striker figures it suggested increasing the range of DFFG's

DFFGs as the PSB in DSII goes atmosphere dosen't affect range, magnetic
containment does.

*As a sidenote I've been soing some research on the Railgun (see thread on
"Weapon Naming Madness"). The scientific device (a one farad or larger
capacitor, two stainless steel rails, and a copper wire for ammunition) can
fire plasma: the superheated copper wire, two ways: The first is to use a
nozzle that will accellerate the plasma to supersonic speeds. This gets the
plasma out to range before it dissipates using speed instead of
containment(this more or less fits the PSB and the range/damage profile
for the DFFG) The second way (as far as I know is HIGHLY theoretical) is to
use three microwave horns (one for each axis) and pulse microwaves at the
plasma just as it leaves the rails. The plasma should develop a circular orbit
to the pulse, generating it's own magnetic field. Multiple shells of plasma
will exist each containing the others. This is a very large weapon, definately
NOT man portable, the generators alone would take a single truck to carry. It
is quite possible that the only "practical" thing that could carry such as
device would be as starship designed for planet destroying (and strangely
enough the Death Star's main gun looks like how such a railgun might work.)
Oerjan Ohlson I know that you use the term railgun to mean something like
DSII's HKP (using a plasma accellerant to throw a slug at hypervelocities) but
my background is in science, I use railgun to refer to the plasma
accellerator, because there are at least three ways to make one work as a
weapon. In any case they are a moot point as far as modern military
practicality. The energy requirements are too great and the recharge times are
unacceptable in combat. Maybe in 200 years the technology will be there to
make them viable.

The original post from Laserlight said that Alarshi troops prefer DFFGs, they
might also use the HKP for longer range fire as they use similar ignition
sources.

anyways back to the vacuum problem:

> Other thoughs:

-1 to the required damage points?

> CFE and HMT powerplants are non-starters

CFE and HMT engines can be space profed easily enough. All it requires is a
LOX tank (1 capacity or 1 x class capacity?, points = 20 x class? This is a
suggestion I just came up with 30 seconds ago, it needs some analysis and
feedback. Maybe no capacity requirement?)

> How much does it cost to vaccum proof a turret ring? or in other words

Turret rings will probably already be space profed. The treatment of
biochemical weapons in DSII assumes that all AFVs are airtight. The
expectation of firing and impact stresses on AFV subassembalies will probably
require that the AFV is spaceproof in order to not become unsealed on a
contaminated battlefield

> I could not decide what happened to conventional artillery, especially

The game effect on MAK is negligeable, MAK's don't rely on explosive shrapnel
but area saturation with shaped charge warheads (even on SGII a 2 yard HEAT
warhead explosion will only affect one target) HEF explosions may or may not
be affected depending if they can gain more than 100 yards in range (1 inch at
scale) The explosion itself probably won't change as the energy released will
travel farther, but there will be no superheated air to cause burns evening
out for game statistics

> If you use the optional abandoned vehicles rule from p45 I can see the

agreed. 1 in 6 instead of 3 in 6 (infantry crews will probably be equipped
with thin space bodysuits for such emergencies.)

> Should there be a possibility of any "Damaged" result being converted

Life support comprimise isn't the first thing to worry about. Simply unsealing
the AFV is very likely to cause explosive decompression, reducing the crew to
a fine red (or green depending on blood color) paste near the impact site. All
the more reason that a crew might choose to evacuate (optonal evac rule
modification above) is the threat of being violently sucked through a hole the
size of a football, lined with hot jagged edges,..... I think that we don't
need to visualise the end of THAT outcome...

okay that's my $0.02 plus inflation, tax, and intrest

From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@t...>

Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 22:27:35 +0200

Subject: Re: Vacuum

> Jim Whitehead wrote:

> C. Downes-Ward wrote:

Agreed, but for somewhat different reasons:

> Gravity has as much

Well... no, not really. Air resistance causes all sorts of nasty problems with
projectile stability and deformation, whereas gravity is a lot more
predictable. It does limit the maximum range of the weapon
somewhat of course, but the main range limitations for direct-fire
weapons are imposed by lines of sight and targetting equipment capabilities
which aren't affected by the lack of air.

GMS, buzzbombs etc would work, provided you use weapons specifically
designed to work in vacuum - you couldn't use standard atmospheric
weapons straight off. I missed the initial post in this thread, so I don't
know if this was covered.

> DFFGs as the PSB in DSII goes atmosphere dosen't affect range,

But air resistance means that the magnetic containment will be "worn out" much
faster than in vacuum, which would reduce the range quite drastically.

> *As a sidenote I've been soing some research on the Railgun [snip]

I, the US Army weapon researchers and the rest of the weapon research
community... Since we're talking future weapons here, I suspect we outvote
you, 'cause our weapon will come in use a couple of centuries before yours <g>

> In any case they are a moot point as far as modern military

What you mean with a "railgun" most likely isn't viable, but I'm quite
confident that I'll live to see the weapons I and my collegues refer to as
railguns used as MBT main armaments. Barring unfortunate accidents
on the firing range, of course :-/

> > CFE and HMT powerplants are non-starters too.

HMT might work - if they're fuel-cells rather than turbines, anyway
(the PSB description looks a bit muddled here :-/ ), since at least the
fuel cell tech used today free oxygen rather than use it up. NASA's
shuttles don't bring any extra oxygen for their fuel cells AFAIK :-/

CFE... well, if you run your combustion engines on gunpowder (preferrably
liquid) they would work without any oxygen, but they probably wouldn't survive
it for very long unless they were specifically designed for such a fuel, but
OTOH you'd need
special-designed engines even if you brought LOX - a lot of extra tubes
for the oxygen, radiators which work in vacuum, etc.

> >How much does it cost to vaccum proof a turret ring? or in other

Quite the contrary. Good air filters and an over-pressurized crew
compartment is much safer (as well as much cheaper) against biochem weapons
than complete airtightness, since even a minor crack will spoil
the airtightness whereas the over-pressure will stop any gas from
getting in. If you get a big crack in the crew compartment wall, the crew is
probably dead anyway...

Regards,