 January 23, 2008 - 9:31am | To save space on some of my research ships I was thinking of adding grapples and mounts on both atomo shuttle craft and other space only craft. What are your thoughts about the following: Atmosphere capable shuttles - Cost of the mounts + adjoining airlocks (need them on the shuttle and main ship) Non-atmo shuttles - Cost of the mounts + adjoining airlocks (need them on the shuttle and main ship) What min / max requirements should there be? |
 February 12, 2008 - 1:11am | The as yet overlooked flaw in "landing" a small craft on an enemies larger craft is this: You land your "breach shuttle" on my hull, I fire up my electron, proton or statis (EMP anyone?) screen, your ships computers and electronics are probably fried. Game over. Good thinking turbo you just EMP'd your own ship  I guarentee you that IF the screens act as an EMP to the vessel attached to the hull of your ship, its going to affect the parent vessel just as much. Which then creates a well hell lets just make kinetic rockets, fire them at the ship with said shields and cause the shields to EMP their own ships which I promise will happen. Then you'll very soon have ships mounting big ass ram prows with these things on them to "bump" the other vessel with just to EMP it. No, you can do that in your SFU, I'll be avoiding that like the plague. A dedicated Boarding launch should already exist (just hasn't been made for the game) in the universe. just needs an airlock possibly a cutting lock with an automated laser power torch or two and elctromagnet docking gear to attach itself to the hull. I'd even have cutter bots, sabotage bots and the like to make life interesting on the boarded ship. But, if I am going into combat with intentions of boarding I wouldn't want the enemy ship to be decompressing in my face even with a spacesuit. It's just the thought of debris flying out at me at a possible thousand miles an hour, or even faster, scares the hell out of me. There is no way in hell any Frontier vessel is going to be decompressing with that type of velocity, you shouldn't even be seeing that in the worst Hollywood film much less forcing it on the players. Zeb's introduced something like this. Plastid. A stabilized plastic acid. I was actually amazed that Knight Hawks didn't have a thermal putty /strip to melt through the ships hull. Ramming a ship at "space speeds" (#per hex) just isn't going to work without some serious "handwavium" technology the Frontiers is along ways away from getting. At those speeds you have something that makes a modern armor penetrator rounds fired from the cannons today extremely pale in comparison. Not only would very little of the ramming boarding pod be left but that deck would be an interesting mess to say the least. Slow the speeds considerably and its completely doable. The place a shaped charge on the nose and a inertia screen behind it to help absorb the blast/impact. Make the pilot do a pilot check he does well and not only did the pod breech but is undamaged, if he screwed up then make the pod damaged to non-useable again and maybe didn't even breech the hull, or breeched but the pod bounced off and so on.. The tactics and hardware one could use in Star Frontiers for boarding/counter boarding is quite extensive when you think about it. |
 February 13, 2008 - 5:07pm | OK, you have a one inch hole in the hull. I would like to see you get through that hole. haha, just being silly. In the the grey area of real versus game mechanics, and some logical reasoning. To be able to pass through a hole made in the hull you will have to do full damage to make a hole big enough to pass through. In my games I don't roll dice it is 400 points for military hulls to reflect the attention to detail, for civilian hulls I will make a roll. And, yes, I agree with you on making a weapon to specifically make a hole but it has to do one third to one half of the points in damage. If it hasn't you have a very jagged hole that will have a chance to rip holes into the space suits. if the full damage is done you would have a hole of one meter+ any less than that it would be very messy jagged hole. One thing to keep in mind military designers would have this in mind and make the perfect place backed with a section of super structure(mind you it doesn't hold the hull together it just makes it very hard to just make a hole and come in, make sense?) And, the effect of hard vacuum you would have to use more explosives like 3 to 5 times of freestanding explosives, or use a special shape charge to make the hole. The super false structure would be an obstacle so boarding will not be easy as you think, like a buttress inside a castle wall. See at just a little more reinforcement if you can't see otherwise. I can't emphasize enough about this difference between military and civilian ships. The engineering behind this would to build up a possible weak spot/s. And the people on board already know were you are just from sensors and portholes. So, you can leave surprise out unless the ship has been crippled to the point of not even moving or weapons fire come from the target ship. The danger of doing this with a civilian ship is it will most likely not be depressurised and much debris coming out with the air coming out violently. Also, civilian hull would tend to not cut nicely and have more jagged edges in the hole. This is just a few major dangers in boarding actions. Is there a way to get around these? YES, but I am not sure if anyone even cares about the finer details. But, it makes for one heck of a scenario of "we need to save the princess." Needless to say my group have a hell of a time to get through my scenarios. In allot of cases the dangers around you are more hazardous than the enemy fire. My people have learned to run more than one character in my games. I don't get my jollies by killing characters but there is a lesson that is learned and the trick or trap doesn't always work the next time. Especially if it takes out a few characters. One thing that they have learned is to keep hired NPCs around to take the initial damage. (what can I say they pay the NPCs well) I hope this helps enlighten other GMs. At-least maybe give some good ideas on the hazards of space battles. Hey it's not a free lunch out there. It's possibly death by vacuum or worse swept aout into space with nothing but your suit. However, there is a way around that also. Just use your head the technology is there. Anyway have fun and watch out for the immidiate surrondings. What you can't see can kill you. |
February 13, 2008 - 10:38pm |
One thing to keep in mind military designers would have this in mind and make the perfect place backed with a section of super structure(mind you it doesn't hold the hull together it just makes it very hard to just make a hole and come in, make sense?) Stay home/away from space unless you want to be buried there. I guarantee you that the perfect places does exist and there's no a damn thing designers can do about it. Hatches, all star ships MUST have a hatch, not so much on the porthole department especially the military vessels, but those are next and if you have cargo hatches well your screwed because those are just giant welcome signs. Your not strengthening those areas in anywhere but your fantasies. and PSSST, if I'm boarding your freighter I don't have to board your ship proper per say, just the cargo area as that is all I'd really be interested in anyway, unless you didn't have anything then I'd take it out of your ship. Placing multiple breaching charges around the ship gives the attacker far more assault options and way less options for the defender, its easier for the assault team to move to various breeches faster then it is the defender and it automatically tells the crew of the boarded vessel they are defending on my terms. The only civie vessel that wouldn't be depressurizing is a passenger liner or one of the others with a very retarded crew. The passenger liner crew that sees a boarding team placing multiple breech charges along various areas of the hull and doesn't surrender then and there deserves the Darwin award and all the dead passengers they needlessly caused themselves. If wanted to convey reality would've seeing bits like mach stem effect in close quarters in both a pressurized and non pressurized environment, the joys of using tandem charges on a pressurized vessel in a non pressurized environment and just how much more fun if the second charge is a thermobaric charge.. you say there are portholes on that deck? not anymore. There's also just how much tamping the explosive will enhance the charges damage done over just placing it, yes folks it makes a phenominal amount of difference and how ungodly pathetic the commercially available tamped explosive (TD-20) compared to doing it yourself really is as is presented in game mechanics, We prefer just keeping keep it simple for a Starfrontiers game.  Did enough reality with the military. I guarentee you folks there are more ways and techniques to gain quick entry into a vessel then it is remotely possible to defend against and still have a practical starship military or civilian. The big question is, just how much damage do you (as the crew) want me (the boarder) to do to your ship? |
February 14, 2008 - 5:11am | That's enough I was in the 734th Army Core Of Engineer's Combat Demolitions. And, don't get smart about it. And, I studied for 10 years to be an astronaut but was turned down by NASA and the Air Force. Of which I was in that too. So, don't start getting a smart mouth with me. I have blown trees clean almost looked like you used a saw to cut it, bridges too. To try to explain obstacle structural design is beyond you. It has been used for many millenia. Go ahead board my ship take on the COMBATS and WARBOTS in my hold I get year picture of your dieing body and collect the reward from Star Law then pay for the damages you caused with it. And obviously you got your info from that Star Wars thingy. |
 February 14, 2008 - 6:26am | Just a quick note for Wolfe. I don't know if you comment in your manner, because it's just your way, or just to wind up people on this website. It isn't clever; in fact it's just damn right rude. We all participate in this site because it is FUN. If you want to go for ultra-realism, go and write a simulator program or something. Personally, if I like an idea that someone has suggested; I'll use it and roll a dice to determine its effects, depending on the rules. I won't ridicule someone for having bad ideas, just ignore them. So, in short, lighten up and save your cynicism for somewhere else - it's not welcome here. P.S. I was in the armed forces too, but who cares? I don't; it was part of my past, and I've moved on - why don't you? |
February 14, 2008 - 1:31pm | I assume it's his (Art Eaton, Aethelwulf, starfrontiers.org Admin) way. He does it to me very frequently, which is the source of our tensions. I say just put it off to prattling and ignore it. It simply reveals what type of person he is. However, I don't think his behavior should be tolerated, otherwise it may drive away newcomers as well as valued members from our great site here. Please lodge a complaint against him with CleanCutRogue by clicking on the  in his post.Art also has years of military experience. I'm not sure, however, how much, if any, of that involves demolitions. I believe his specialty has been avionics and aerospace. Back on subject, I think he has valid points regarding breeching hulls, so let's address those if anyone here disagrees. |
February 14, 2008 - 3:53pm | I have a few words for Wolfe, look up Anti torpedo belt or netting. The belt added to the structure or else the torpedoes would tare a bigger hole in the ship. And, the netting did stop some but wasn't very effective in deploying had to slow way down or it was useless even though it was made of chains. And, there were internal structures added to keep any torpedoes just blowing a ship in half, although hitting the magazine didn't help any. My group of players like the super realism. It makes the game more satisfying to them and a heavy dose of WWII(that's World War Two) more romantic in a morbid way. So, if you don't like it stand somewhere else and keep it to yourself. All these contributions are is to let the rest of the people know that someone out there likes to go all out and meet the challenge. As far as your character as a person, well it was childish to be that way. And, to start babbling about what you don't know anything about is just going to get you ignored to the most extreme. And to the strategic obstacles, they aren't to hold anything together but to impede the attacker, IE the torpedo belt on battleships of WWII, and others. The next thing to look at would be Maximillian plate armor from the medevil times to learn about strengthening by use of design. Lighter yet just as strong if not stronger than the material it is made from. (oh, yes, I am a blacksmith by family trade.) |
February 14, 2008 - 3:54pm | Too many clicks with the mouse, oops. |
 February 15, 2008 - 7:44am | Hey Gilbert Going off the torpedo belt idea, for lack of better words, I am picturing a double hull type set-up in stratigic areas of the spacecraft? or just small compartments that dont even open up to the rest of the ship? I am curious how you set up your deckplans. Any chance you could post one? Time flies when your having rum. Im a government employee, I dont goof-off. I constructively abuse my time. |
February 15, 2008 - 2:25pm | OK... I can't resist posting... Typically I send a PM to ppl like Wolfe without public posting. but... I find it so INTERESTING that the ppl from "star frontiers.org " site do not comment on Art's posting style on http://starfrontiers.us --- guess they must have the "put up with Art" sheilds enabled.  |
February 15, 2008 - 3:32pm | Okay, let's keep it civil. We'll put up the "chalk it up to w00t's energy" shields.  As for the torpedo net, that will stop torpedoes, but it wouldn't stop a ramming ship or a breeching crew. |
February 15, 2008 - 4:21pm | It isn't going to stop anything, it is just to give the defending ship a longer time to respond to the attacker. And, to slow down any boarders by putting more armor between them and the inside. Also, pack more explosives and/or more laser power torch energy. The torpedo net won't stop the breaching crew but it will slow them down while they cut through it. Anyhow, as far as game play with either one. First the net it only stops 3 or 4 missile weapons. As for the belt it shifts the DTM(damage table modifier) -5 to - 15 down to make more hull hits. It also adds 20% more armor to the ships hull. It will take away atleast 1 ADF or MR. As for deck plans, the part of the hull that is usally recieving the most aromr is the engineering decks. It will have a thicker hull than the reast of the ship. Upto haveing a double hull which will remove 25% of the ships speed. All of this is optional of course so change it if you need to but it has been play tested and works very well. The speed lose makes more awkward to get so we don't use it on the smaller ship(loosing speed). Anyway, please have fun with these and hopefully you have a blast,haha. Next time I will talk about hull integrity enhancements. |
 February 15, 2008 - 7:42pm | I would think the ship's hatches would be the worst place to try and board it from, it's a thing called a choke point. Once you blow your way in throw the outer hatch you then have to decide if you're going threw the inner hatch next or a bulkhead, either way it's just 1 hole for defenders to direct their fire on. And let's not forget about any reception they may have already set up in the airlock! Remote laser turrets, tangler or frag grenade charges. No boarding through an airlock is a death trap for anything not inside powered armor. You are going to want to board near the ships strategic locations, the bridge and engineering. You want a quick fight to take control of the ship, not a deck to deck battle for every square foot of deck space. So the locations you will board will be limited to near these area. It also depends on what condition you want the ship in after your done, if you want to capture and repair the ship for later use you'll want to avoid damage to any major systems if you want to get the ship out of there before help arrives. An inside man can help with this approach. If you're boarding a pirate ship with no hostages, hell you can then cut the ship in half and take each section seperatly. Every situation will need a different means of doing it. In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same. |
February 15, 2008 - 8:09pm | The best place would be somewhere from which you can swiftly access life support systems or cause engines to overload to quickly take the occupants hostage. |
 February 15, 2008 - 8:19pm | As one of the 'ppl from
"star frontiers.org " site' I'll comment, although I find it sad that there seems to be a distinction. I like to think of myself as a SF fan, not in a clique based around one site or another. Besides, most of the people who responded are (or at least were) reglular posters on the sf.org site. In any case, when I read Wolfe's repsonses, I thought they were a little more acerbic than Art's typical responses (I didn't know that it was Art at the time) and contained a lot spelling and grammatical errors. I've seen worse (both tone and spelling/grammar) by others on other sites. Maybe I just have thick skin and ignore that kind of stuff. However, you guys called him on it almost immediately so nothing else needed to be said. Besides, I didn't (and still don't) have anything to contribute to the topic of the thread so I never posted. As Corjay has said, let's move on and discuss the topics and ignore the personalities. Ad Astra Per Ardua! My blog - Expanding Frontier Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine |
 February 17, 2008 - 1:33pm | I have a few words for Wolfe, look up Anti torpedo belt or netting. The belt added to the structure or else the torpedoes would tare a bigger hole in the ship. And, the netting did stop some but wasn't very effective in deploying had to slow way down or it was useless even though it was made of chains. And, there were internal structures added to keep any torpedoes just blowing a ship in half, although hitting the magazine didn't help any. My group of players like the super realism. It makes the game more satisfying to them and a heavy dose of WWII(that's World War Two) more romantic in a morbid way. So, if you don't like it stand somewhere else and keep it to yourself. All these contributions are is to let the rest of the people know that someone out there likes to go all out and meet the challenge. As far as your character as a person, well it was childish to be that way. And, to start babbling about what you don't know anything about is just going to get you ignored to the most extreme. And to the strategic obstacles, they aren't to hold anything together but to impede the attacker, IE the torpedo belt on battleships of WWII, and others. The next thing to look at would be Maximillian plate armor from the medevil times to learn about strengthening by use of design. Lighter yet just as strong if not stronger than the material it is made from. (oh, yes, I am a blacksmith by family trade.) Okay, but wasn't the torpedo netting made obselete by modern torpedo warheads? Also, I thought the torpedo net was exclusively used during WWI. Other than that, your points about strengthing by design(alloying in particular) are valid. "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
February 17, 2008 - 4:19pm | As one of the 'ppl from
"star frontiers.org " site' I'll comment, although I find it sad that there seems to be a distinction. I like to think of myself as a SF fan, not in a clique based around one site or another. Besides, most of the people who responded are (or at least were) reglular posters on the sf.org site. I'll repeat here what I replied to you in PM so that everyone knows.In any case, when I read Wolfe's repsonses, I thought they were a little more acerbic than Art's typical responses (I didn't know that it was Art at the time) and contained a lot spelling and grammatical errors. I've seen worse (both tone and spelling/grammar) by others on other sites. Maybe I just have thick skin and ignore that kind of stuff. However, you guys called him on it almost immediately so nothing else needed to be said. Besides, I didn't (and still don't) have anything to contribute to the topic of the thread so I never posted. As Corjay has said, let's move on and discuss the topics and ignore the personalities. Wolfe, despite his not making efforts to deny my claims of his being Art, is actually not Art. Here's what I wrote in the PM in reply to Will noting an argument between Art and Wolfe at SF.org: For the record, Art is no stranger to bad spelling, and is a master of
overt condescension, which is why I thought it was him. The thing that
seems to differentiate them is that Wolfe seems to target anyone. Art
is generally more selective about who he condescends to. |
February 17, 2008 - 7:52pm | I have a few words for Wolfe, look up Anti torpedo belt or netting. The belt added to the structure or else the torpedoes would tare a bigger hole in the ship. And, the netting did stop some but wasn't very effective in deploying had to slow way down or it was useless even though it was made of chains. And, there were internal structures added to keep any torpedoes just blowing a ship in half, although hitting the magazine didn't help any. My group of players like the super realism. It makes the game more satisfying to them and a heavy dose of WWII(that's World War Two) more romantic in a morbid way. So, if you don't like it stand somewhere else and keep it to yourself. All these contributions are is to let the rest of the people know that someone out there likes to go all out and meet the challenge. As far as your character as a person, well it was childish to be that way. And, to start babbling about what you don't know anything about is just going to get you ignored to the most extreme. And to the strategic obstacles, they aren't to hold anything together but to impede the attacker, IE the torpedo belt on battleships of WWII, and others. The next thing to look at would be Maximillian plate armor from the medevil times to learn about strengthening by use of design. Lighter yet just as strong if not stronger than the material it is made from. (oh, yes, I am a blacksmith by family trade.) Okay, but wasn't the torpedo netting made obselete by modern torpedo warheads? Also, I thought the torpedo net was exclusively used during WWI. Other than that, your points about strengthening by design(alloying in particular) are valid. First, the torpedo net it was designed and made before WWI to stop the more use of torpedoes. Yes I know that torpedoes weren't used allot before WWI. However, it falls into the spy thingy. Anyway, the torpedo users figured that if you can't hit the hull the first time the second one would. Also with the size of the warheads on them were getting bigger, well, it was just a matter of time the the netting would be useless. After one torpedo there usually a hole in the net anyway. With bigger torpedoes the bigger the hole. So, that brought about the end of the netting in a nutshell. In some of the pictures you can see the remnants of this tech. They look like angled pipes along sides of the ships. Second, the torpedo belt, well it has fallen to the wayside also in newer ships except for the capital ships I.E. Aircraft carriers(the new capital ship). It has a more success because it is part of the hull and if you have the money and resources you will be able to sink that ship anyway. It will take more than one hit to do so. It added strength by using a thingy in physics called Energy Dispersion through reinforcement. Which, when you also do the opposite and cut holes in something in certain places it does the same thing. I believe it is called Fatigue inhibition. Third, the use of alloys. Yes, the use of alloys has and is in use today. All kinds of alloys have been tested and evaluated to strength, construction, and cost. And, the winner is an aluminum alloy extremely light to strength ratio. Although, mass displacement is becoming more popular on damaged ships by counter flooding/ ballasting(moving a mass, usually water in tanks, from the damaged side to the opposite side. But, I really don't see a spaceship doing this one for some reason. The biggest way to defend is using counter measures. The best way is to use a cheaper weapon to take out the incoming weapon, called point defense by most people. But, if you run out of ammo for your point defense weapons that need ammo, well you know that outcome. And, then there's coverage from these types of defenses. The question would be can I cover my whole ship. I have heard of people using a shotgun technique to stop an incoming missile weapons. Keep in mind what is happening here. In space there is no drag, so these projectiles you just shot out may become a hazard for your allies in the same fight. Here is my favorite one ECM/EMP pulses. WOW, if you can take out a missile with a pulse of energy wouldn't the use of a laser battery be safer than blasting the very dangerous pulse of energy out from your ship. Remember, you may have allies in the same fight. One point is if the devices are shielded from all the energy given off from the nearby sun, or whatever, I wouldn't really believe that you could pulse enough "safe" energy to take out a missile. That leads us to shields the most ideal way to defend against income weapons. This is, to me, a evolved form of ECM/EMP. You have these on and hope it gets through the shielding of the incoming missile. For energy weapons it is the use of counter energy to cancel out some or all of the incoming energy pulse from the enemy. Just keep in mind ALL star ships will have an passive and active defense against this kind of attack. Missiles on the other hand will probably only have a very good passive system. If there any questions I will answer them here so everyone can see them, please. I hope this clears up more questions than it makes. |
February 18, 2008 - 10:21am | First, the torpedo net it was designed and made before WWI to stop the more use of torpedoes. Yes I know that torpedoes weren't used allot before WWI. However, it falls into the spy thingy. Anyway, the torpedo users figured that if you can't hit the hull the first time the second one would. Also with the size of the warheads on them were getting bigger, well, it was just a matter of time the the netting would be useless. After one torpedo there usually a hole in the net anyway. With bigger torpedoes the bigger the hole. So, that brought about the end of the netting in a nutshell. In some of the pictures you can see the remnants of this tech. They look like angled pipes along sides of the ships. Okay. Second, the torpedo belt, well it has fallen to the wayside also in newer ships except for the capital ships I.E. Aircraft carriers(the new capital ship). It has a more success because it is part of the hull and if you have the money and resources you will be able to sink that ship anyway. It will take more than one hit to do so. Actually some would argue that modern destroyers would qualify as capital warships in their own right, but that's neither here nor there. As for it taking more than one hit to take it out, it depends on the type of guided missile being used against it...Tomahawks, Harpoons and the MM38 series of Exocet which sank the Sheffield would have a more difficult time of sinking a modern CVAN in a single hit, assuming it didn't hit the avgas stores on the hangar bay(or the missile wasn't dropped from above and punch through the flight deck, ala the Princeton in '44). On the other hand, the Soviet-era anti-shipping missiles(SS-N-1s to 14s) with their larger shaped-charge warheads, might have an easier time of it. Third, the use of alloys. Yes, the use of alloys has and is in use today. All kinds of alloys have been tested and evaluated to strength, construction, and cost. And, the winner is an aluminum alloy extremely light to strength ratio. Absolutely. Also, some ships are using Kevlar to reinforce certain compartments(bridge, engineering spaces, avionics, av gas, etc.) Although, mass displacement is becoming more popular on damaged ships by counter flooding/ ballasting(moving a mass, usually water in tanks, from the damaged side to the opposite side. But, I really don't see a spaceship doing this one for some reason. Though a similar principle(overpressurizing the inside of a spaceframe) can be used on a temporary basis, to enter the atmospheres of Jovian and greenhouse worlds(for either mining or exploration purposes). The biggest way to defend is using counter measures. The best way is to use a cheaper weapon to take out the incoming weapon, called point defense by most people. But, if you run out of ammo for your point defense weapons that need ammo, well you know that outcome. Thus the U.S. military's expiriments with laser weapons for that purpose, partly a bastard offspring of the SDI program, partly a panic reaction brought on by the BBC showing the world the honking huge holes blasted into the sides of RN ships by Argentine Exocets.... The problem with that being, of course, is the current efficency of las weapons and the amount of power required to generate a beam powerful enough to swat a guided missile. And, then there's coverage from these types of defenses. The question would be can I cover my whole ship. I have heard of people using a shotgun technique to stop an incoming missile weapons. Keep in mind what is happening here. In space there is no drag, so these projectiles you just shot out may become a hazard for your allies in the same fight. In a word, no, at least not with unguided anti-missile ordinance. A guided ICM becomes necessary if you want to be able to cover your ship from incoming missiles, without endangering your allies. As you shouldn't need a warhead on an ICM(mine are kinetic-kill weapons)it can be almost completely electronics and engine, though it might no longer be the cheap defense. Here is my favorite one ECM/EMP pulses. WOW, if you can take out a missile with a pulse of energy wouldn't the use of a laser battery be safer than blasting the very dangerous pulse of energy out from your ship. Remember, you may have allies in the same fight. One point is if the devices are shielded from all the energy given off from the nearby sun, or whatever, I wouldn't really believe that you could pulse enough "safe" energy to take out a missile. Also, ships would require some sort of optical shielding just to get past a planet's van Allen belts, wouldn't it? If so, that in itself would negate EMP as a viable weapon in space, as would the use of fibre-optic cabling in the place of metal wiring to conduct electricity. That leads us to shields the most ideal way to defend against income weapons. This is, to me, a evolved form of ECM/EMP. You have these on and hope it gets through the shielding of the incoming missile. For energy weapons it is the use of counter energy to cancel out some or all of the incoming energy pulse from the enemy. Just keep in mind ALL star ships will have an passive and active defense against this kind of attack. Missiles on the other hand will probably only have a very good passive system. Depending on how minaturized active radar can be made, even though missiles can be guided to their targets by means of either active or semi-active radar homing from their launching platforms(or remotely piloted all the way in by their launching platforms, ala AD2300). Also, I tend to think of shields as more fields of tightly coherent magnetic or gravitic force which deflect beams and cause missiles to "crash" against its surface. "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
February 18, 2008 - 3:51pm | I don't know where to start on this one, however read up on laser technology. They have found a cheaper and cooler (as in temperature) way to make a laser into a weapon. It is still in experimental stages. Based off of some technology from WWII Germany. Will we ever get away from that stuff? And for guidance, all you need to do is listen for the hum from most technology that uses electricity. Simply use fibre optics to make the electronic hum levels go down. Of course you could use the higher computing power to have a visual locking capability in the nose of the missile. IFF would be easy if done right. I have used visual systems and they are good now at recognizing certain objects shape. But anyway, you repeated what I have put here with more examples of current technology. I am looking at future tech and would rather leave it up-to the reader to use their imagination. Other than that, I don't want to go into a big explanation on this stuff. The comparison of "modern" tech to what future tech will be like you need to look into the tech that is being researched on now. And, look into theories that on in works now. And I am not trying to talk down to anyone. |
February 18, 2008 - 5:02pm | Not to worry. I see no condescension there. I agree that the theories of today are the technology of tomorrow. As history has borne out, if we can imagine it, we can do it. The only question is how effective it will be at the technological level under discussion. I always consider that the Frontier is about 400 years in advance of our current technology based on the timeline. Within the last 10 years alone we have either hit upon a short-lived technological rennaissance, or we are experiencing the speed at which we will continue to advance in technology from now on. In that case, SF is poorly advanced compared to where we will really be in 400 years. |
February 19, 2008 - 5:06am | I see it as only 20 to 50 years from now. Technology is there now the only hold up is for one, other technology to catch up, two, improvements in some technologies over there current performance, three, some old farts to retire out of control that are holding back the program. It will happen sooner if there is a real space station put into high orbit. Not this thingy they want to call a space station, platform maybe, space station not. So far, the biggest features for the space program is one see if life can exist on other planets. If so the military will respond to the threat(I don't understand this one very well seems a bit ridiculous). The second thing is greed for the helium 3 that is on the moon, well in the moon. However, space exploration is on their list of things to do. It's only a side effect of what they want to do. |
February 19, 2008 - 1:22pm | Don't take this as snarky, but I would think others were having as much trouble reading that as I was: TRANSLATION: I see it as only 20 to 50 years from now. Technology is
there now; the only hold up is for 1) other technology to catch up, 2) improvements in some technologies over their current performance, and 3) some old farts to retire out of control that are holding back
the program. It will happen sooner if there is a real space station put
into high orbit. Not this thingy they want to call a space station,
platform maybe, space station not. So far, the biggest features for the space program is, first, see if life can exist on other planets. If so the military will respond to the threat (I don't understand this one very well seems a bit ridiculous). The second thing is greed for the helium 3 that is on the moon, well in the moon. However, space exploration is on their list of things to do. It's only a side effect of what they want to do. "...see if life can exist on other planets. If so the military will respond to the threat" Does this come from something you read? This just sounds inaccurate. |
February 19, 2008 - 4:35pm | I'm not sure how to respond to this, but the contacts that I have talked to have given me that response. I don't know how to clarify this to anyone. But, the response is to put more satellites in orbit looking outward from earth that specifically looks for more intelligent life, like SETI does or did with more horse power to do it. Just keep questions on this to a minimum for I can not answer them except this bit of info. I really don't understand what they are trying to say about the situation on if life is found on Mars. One detail I can say if life is found on Mars, the possibility of life on other planets just got more likely. |
February 20, 2008 - 12:39pm | I don't know where to start on this one, however read up on laser technology. They have found a cheaper and cooler (as in temperature) way to make a laser into a weapon. It is still in experimental stages. Based off of some technology from WWII Germany. Will we ever get away from that stuff? And for guidance, all you need to do is listen for the hum from most technology that uses electricity. Simply use fibre optics to make the electronic hum levels go down. Of course you could use the higher computing power to have a visual locking capability in the nose of the missile. IFF would be easy if done right. I have used visual systems and they are good now at recognizing certain objects shape. But anyway, you repeated what I have put here with more examples of current technology. I am looking at future tech and would rather leave it up-to the reader to use their imagination. Other than that, I don't want to go into a big explanation on this stuff. The comparison of "modern" tech to what future tech will be like you need to look into the tech that is being researched on now. And, look into theories that on in works now. And I am not trying to talk down to anyone. Cool. Been reading up on some of this, and it's an eye opener to say the least. As to your comments on the space program, sadly, that mentality's one of the few things which hasn't changed in forty years, and, unless someone in NASA comes up with a new and better way to use space travel tech for military ends, it may very well never change. "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
April 15, 2008 - 3:02pm | Someone started a page here. Content of The House Rules Wiki project w00t's Boarding ActionsA topic was started here which discussed an expansion to boarding actions in the Knight Hawks board-game. This wiki covers the following:
I need to re-read through this discussion and move some content there and possibly rename the page to "Boarding Actions". |
