One of the Same (Space Opera, Open,Character)

[Congreveopia]

Okay, I'm interested. This looks like it might be a lot of fun, but, if none of you mind, I would like to know what the um... tone of this RP will be before I spend the time to make an app. To this end, I am going to pose a question. I am interested in the answer, but also in the way it is arrived at, so I can see how the OPs will act in the future.

Okay, actually, I am going to pose two questions. Here they are:

1) The Valkyrie, the ship that Len Hyet mentioned, assuming it has around the mass of an F-22 Raptor, accelerating up to 0.7c will consume 6.80481x10^20 joules of energy. This is a vast amount of energy. That is the same energy as would be released by 2.8 thousand Tsar Bombs. To gather that much energy from a star, you would need an array the size of EARTH, perfectly capturing all of the star's energy, for an hour. This raises two sub questions:

A) Where is that energy coming from? The most efficient way to generate energy is antimatter annihilation. Even FT won't get you past this. There is no way to produce energy more efficiently than this. Now, using antimatter annihilation, the ship has to lug around 7571.4 kilograms of fuel, half matter, half antimatter. However, with that fuel, the ship now weighs more and needs more fuel. That brings us into the domains of the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, which I won't venture into right now, but suffice to say that fuel is a concern (especially considering that you'll probably want to slow down too).

B) What use are weapons compared to that? I don't know how powerful your ion cannons or torpedoes are, but I doubt they are carrying 2.8 thousand Tsar bombs of energy in them (because then they'd need to weigh at least 7571.4 kilograms). Why would you put those engines on a fighter when you could just fire the engines at your enemy as a kinetic weapon with vastly more power?

2) Why is the speed capped at 0.7c? Does it violate the warranty to go faster? Relative to what is it capped at 0.7c? The nearest star? Its Mothership? Everything for an AU around? If the fuel problems mentioned above are solved, why can't you attack entire worlds by just hitting them with Valkyries that have been accelerating for a year?

Thank you for your time, I look forward to your response. And by the way, feel free to say "We don't want to concern ourselves with things like that in this RP." I won't take part if that's your answer, but I hope you guys have a good time nonetheless.

[Post War America]

Well... this is tagged as a "Space Opera" and I do know that type of SF is much less... sciencey that hard SF. Now, the writer of the fighter will have to speak for him/her/itself, but since you made it clear that you have no interest in playing game that is distinctly not hard SF, then you clearly should consider not joining. Now... I'm not the person who has to explain it, and maybe they will find some way of explaining it in an acceptable way to you, but if you're considering not joining over a space fighter's realism (or lack thereof) and requesting justifications through mathematical calculation and plausible scientific explanation this just doesn't seem the RP for you... but I must once again state that I am NOT the person to explain the specifics of this design.

[Congreveopia]

Well... this is tagged as a "Space Opera" and I do know that type of SF is much less... sciencey that hard SF. Now, the writer of the fighter will have to speak for him/her/itself, but since you made it clear that you have no interest in playing game that is distinctly not hard SF, then you clearly should consider not joining. Now... I'm not the person who has to explain it, and maybe they will find some way of explaining it in an acceptable way to you, but if you're considering not joining over a space fighter's realism (or lack thereof) and requesting justifications through mathematical calculation and plausible scientific explanation this just doesn't seem the RP for you... but I must once again state that I am NOT the person to explain the specifics of this design.

I indeed see what you mean. Typically, I would have just ignored this RP, but someone encouraged me to join, so I decided to see if it would be an RP I'd like, fully knowing that it is possible I wouldn't (and of course acknowledging that it is perfectly fine for it to be one I wouldn't like). Also, to address the statement that I'm not interested in anything unrealistic, well...

Kinda...

It's actually consistency that really matters to me. I'm okay with the tech behind artificial gravity, or shields, or engines, etc. Not being explained. Basically, I'm fine with any setting, but I want actions to make sense in that setting. To put it another way, I'm okay with engines accelerating a ship up to 0.9c. What I have a problem with its when people don't behave logically in the setting. For example, it would annoy me if in the world with the super-engines, everyone fought with lasers delivering a couple megajoules of energy rather than kinetic weapons delivering orders of magnitude more energy.

[Zeinbrad]

Well... this is tagged as a "Space Opera" and I do know that type of SF is much less... sciencey that hard SF. Now, the writer of the fighter will have to speak for him/her/itself, but since you made it clear that you have no interest in playing game that is distinctly not hard SF, then you clearly should consider not joining. Now... I'm not the person who has to explain it, and maybe they will find some way of explaining it in an acceptable way to you, but if you're considering not joining over a space fighter's realism (or lack thereof) and requesting justifications through mathematical calculation and plausible scientific explanation this just doesn't seem the RP for you... but I must once again state that I am NOT the person to explain the specifics of this design.

I indeed see what you mean. Typically, I would have just ignored this RP, but someone encouraged me to join, so I decided to see if it would be an RP I'd like, fully knowing that it is possible I wouldn't (and of course acknowledging that it is perfectly fine for it to be one I wouldn't like). Also, to address the statement that I'm not interested in anything unrealistic, well...

Kinda...

It's actually consistency that really matters to me. I'm okay with the tech behind artificial gravity, or shields, or engines, etc. Not being explained. Basically, I'm fine with any setting, but I want actions to make sense in that setting. To put it another way, I'm okay with engines accelerating a ship up to 0.9c. What I have a problem with its when people don't behave logically in the setting. For example, it would annoy me if in the world with the super-engines, everyone fought with lasers delivering a couple megajoules of energy rather than kinetic weapons delivering orders of magnitude more energy.

You clearly are smart and know what your doing.

I'll leave a explanation to Len. But I'll say some thing this setting has.

Stealth Corvettes-Yes I know there's no stealth in space, but I wanted to add some U-Boat like stuff to the war I'm working on.

Sword fighting-Typically among the high classes of most races or officers.

Dogfighting.

Psychic Powers-Nephilim.

Super-Soldiers.

AI.

This is all off the top of my head and me not wanting to go into my notes.

[Zeinbrad]

I'll get working on the IC once Illan get his app up.

Also, if this gets past Episode One I will have one of you do this.

[The Moon States]

Tag, tag tag tag taaaaaaaaaag

[Zeinbrad]

Tag, tag tag tag taaaaaaaaaag

Did I make you happy?

[The Moon States]

Tag, tag tag tag taaaaaaaaaag

Did I make you happy?

Sorts, I'm just bored and all of my other RP's either died or are slowed down ATM
Also really digging the mandolorian reference for the Wao as well as some things I think you might have gotten ideas from Mass Effect?

[Zeinbrad]

Did I make you happy?

Sorts, I'm just bored and all of my other RP's either died or are slowed down ATM

Okay.

As for the IC. For the first part I hope you guys like Sewer Levels.

[Crazy girl]

Tag, tag tag tag taaaaaaaaaag

Don't make tag posts, they're spam.

[Zeinbrad]

Tag, tag tag tag taaaaaaaaaag

Don't make tag posts, they're spam.

Holy crap I got scared for a second once I saw your name.

[The Moon States]

Tag, tag tag tag taaaaaaaaaag

Don't make tag posts, they're spam.

Um, okay I'll refrain from tagging as much as possible from now on then.

[Illan]

Tag, tag tag tag taaaaaaaaaag

Don't make tag posts, they're spam.

Everybody tags, though.

[Zeinbrad]

Don't make tag posts, they're spam.

Everybody tags, though.

Illan stop trying to be a Che Guevara and get the app up.

[Illan]

Everybody tags, though.

Illan stop trying to be a Che Guevara and get the app up.

THE FUCK YOU JUST CALL ME M8

[Len Hyet]

Okay, I'm interested. This looks like it might be a lot of fun, but, if none of you mind, I would like to know what the um... tone of this RP will be before I spend the time to make an app. To this end, I am going to pose a question. I am interested in the answer, but also in the way it is arrived at, so I can see how the OPs will act in the future.

Okay, actually, I am going to pose two questions. Here they are:

1) The Valkyrie, the ship that Len Hyet mentioned, assuming it has around the mass of an F-22 Raptor, accelerating up to 0.7c will consume 6.80481x10^20 joules of energy. This is a vast amount of energy. That is the same energy as would be released by 2.8 thousand Tsar Bombs. To gather that much energy from a star, you would need an array the size of EARTH, perfectly capturing all of the star's energy, for an hour. This raises two sub questions:

A) Where is that energy coming from? The most efficient way to generate energy is antimatter annihilation. Even FT won't get you past this. There is no way to produce energy more efficiently than this. Now, using antimatter annihilation, the ship has to lug around 7571.4 kilograms of fuel, half matter, half antimatter. However, with that fuel, the ship now weighs more and needs more fuel. That brings us into the domains of the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, which I won't venture into right now, but suffice to say that fuel is a concern (especially considering that you'll probably want to slow down too).

B) What use are weapons compared to that? I don't know how powerful your ion cannons or torpedoes are, but I doubt they are carrying 2.8 thousand Tsar bombs of energy in them (because then they'd need to weigh at least 7571.4 kilograms). Why would you put those engines on a fighter when you could just fire the engines at your enemy as a kinetic weapon with vastly more power?

2) Why is the speed capped at 0.7c? Does it violate the warranty to go faster? Relative to what is it capped at 0.7c? The nearest star? Its Mothership? Everything for an AU around? If the fuel problems mentioned above are solved, why can't you attack entire worlds by just hitting them with Valkyries that have been accelerating for a year?

Thank you for your time, I look forward to your response. And by the way, feel free to say "We don't want to concern ourselves with things like that in this RP." I won't take part if that's your answer, but I hope you guys have a good time nonetheless.

Here! Okay, let's roll.

1a) I was going to go with a zped to generate energy. Potentially limitless and rather compact (FT science).

1b) I'm unsure as to what you're getting at here. The way I had envisioned it, and as far as I know how engines work, is simply the creation of focused energy in a single direction. Engine wash is a thing, and it can be dangerous, but it's hard to aim, limited in range, and when it comes to kinetic energy, simple to evade. Simply put, space combat takes place over massive areas. A lightsecond is nothing distancewise in extrasolar combat. Thus, even weapons moving at the speed of light become avoidable with simple combat maneuvers. It doesn't matter if it only takes your weapon three seconds (for example), to hit the target, in those three seconds the enemy ship can have shifted enough to one side or another to have rendered your shot useless. At even longer distances, (lighthours, even lightdays), it becomes quite simply a waste of energy to shoot at your enemy, as they can simply avoid it and you wouldn't even see them move until hours or days later.

2) At that point even the almost minimal stresses space puts on a ship would be too much. Gravity is almost negligible, space is practically empty, but even micrometeors and minimal gravitational pull becomes dangerous the higher in speed a ship gets. I put it at 0.7c because it seemed like a reasonable place to put it, based on my knowledge of FT combat and space itself.

2a) As to your question about attacking entire worlds, hypothetically you could. If you didn't mind destroying the planet utterly. It was my presumption that most combat in space would revolve around the few habitable worlds. Destroying one would be like blowing up the oil reserves both countries are fighting over. Its counterproductive. Assuming you did want to blow up a world, then accelerating anything for a time would be a good way to do it. Obviously ships are somewhat more maneuverable than say, asteroids, and thus harder to shoot down with planetary defenses, but they would have to stabilize at some point, simply to puncture the atmosphere. The G-Class Hunter Killers (the ship is named Valkyrie, tsk tsk), aren't large enough to survive the re-entry burn without a precise insertion, making them vulnerable during entry into the atmosphere. Furthermore, at sufficient velocities hitting the atmosphere of a planet would be like hitting a brick wall a few miles thick. The ship goes boom, the pilot goes splat, and the rubble burns up in the atmosphere.

If I was going to attack a planet with kinetic weaponry for the purpose of destroying it I'd go get a bunch of moon sized asteroids, point them at the planet, strap engines to them, and send them off. A year or so later, no more planet. Assuming they in that time didn't beef up their planetary security of course.

[Zeinbrad]

Illan stop trying to be a Che Guevara and get the app up.

THE FUCK YOU JUST CALL ME M8

You don't want your face on T-Shirts?

[Zeinbrad]

Did I make you happy?

Sorts, I'm just bored and all of my other RP's either died or are slowed down ATM
Also really digging the mandolorian reference for the Wao as well as some things I think you might have gotten ideas from Mass Effect?

Such as? Just wondering, I'm curious.

[Congreveopia]

Okay, I'm interested. This looks like it might be a lot of fun, but, if none of you mind, I would like to know what the um... tone of this RP will be before I spend the time to make an app. To this end, I am going to pose a question. I am interested in the answer, but also in the way it is arrived at, so I can see how the OPs will act in the future.

Okay, actually, I am going to pose two questions. Here they are:

1) The Valkyrie, the ship that Len Hyet mentioned, assuming it has around the mass of an F-22 Raptor, accelerating up to 0.7c will consume 6.80481x10^20 joules of energy. This is a vast amount of energy. That is the same energy as would be released by 2.8 thousand Tsar Bombs. To gather that much energy from a star, you would need an array the size of EARTH, perfectly capturing all of the star's energy, for an hour. This raises two sub questions:

A) Where is that energy coming from? The most efficient way to generate energy is antimatter annihilation. Even FT won't get you past this. There is no way to produce energy more efficiently than this. Now, using antimatter annihilation, the ship has to lug around 7571.4 kilograms of fuel, half matter, half antimatter. However, with that fuel, the ship now weighs more and needs more fuel. That brings us into the domains of the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, which I won't venture into right now, but suffice to say that fuel is a concern (especially considering that you'll probably want to slow down too).

B) What use are weapons compared to that? I don't know how powerful your ion cannons or torpedoes are, but I doubt they are carrying 2.8 thousand Tsar bombs of energy in them (because then they'd need to weigh at least 7571.4 kilograms). Why would you put those engines on a fighter when you could just fire the engines at your enemy as a kinetic weapon with vastly more power?

2) Why is the speed capped at 0.7c? Does it violate the warranty to go faster? Relative to what is it capped at 0.7c? The nearest star? Its Mothership? Everything for an AU around? If the fuel problems mentioned above are solved, why can't you attack entire worlds by just hitting them with Valkyries that have been accelerating for a year?

Thank you for your time, I look forward to your response. And by the way, feel free to say "We don't want to concern ourselves with things like that in this RP." I won't take part if that's your answer, but I hope you guys have a good time nonetheless.

Here! Okay, let's roll.

1a) I was going to go with a zped to generate energy. Potentially limitless and rather compact (FT science).

1b) I'm unsure as to what you're getting at here. The way I had envisioned it, and as far as I know how engines work, is simply the creation of focused energy in a single direction. Engine wash is a thing, and it can be dangerous, but it's hard to aim, limited in range, and when it comes to kinetic energy, simple to evade. Simply put, space combat takes place over massive areas. A lightsecond is nothing distancewise in extrasolar combat. Thus, even weapons moving at the speed of light become avoidable with simple combat maneuvers. It doesn't matter if it only takes your weapon three seconds (for example), to hit the target, in those three seconds the enemy ship can have shifted enough to one side or another to have rendered your shot useless. At even longer distances, (lighthours, even lightdays), it becomes quite simply a waste of energy to shoot at your enemy, as they can simply avoid it and you wouldn't even see them move until hours or days later.

2) At that point even the almost minimal stresses space puts on a ship would be too much. Gravity is almost negligible, space is practically empty, but even micrometeors and minimal gravitational pull becomes dangerous the higher in speed a ship gets. I put it at 0.7c because it seemed like a reasonable place to put it, based on my knowledge of FT combat and space itself.

2a) As to your question about attacking entire worlds, hypothetically you could. If you didn't mind destroying the planet utterly. It was my presumption that most combat in space would revolve around the few habitable worlds. Destroying one would be like blowing up the oil reserves both countries are fighting over. Its counterproductive. Assuming you did want to blow up a world, then accelerating anything for a time would be a good way to do it. Obviously ships are somewhat more maneuverable than say, asteroids, and thus harder to shoot down with planetary defenses, but they would have to stabilize at some point, simply to puncture the atmosphere. The G-Class Hunter Killers (the ship is named Valkyrie, tsk tsk), aren't large enough to survive the re-entry burn without a precise insertion, making them vulnerable during entry into the atmosphere. Furthermore, at sufficient velocities hitting the atmosphere of a planet would be like hitting a brick wall a few miles thick. The ship goes boom, the pilot goes splat, and the rubble burns up in the atmosphere.

If I was going to attack a planet with kinetic weaponry for the purpose of destroying it I'd go get a bunch of moon sized asteroids, point them at the planet, strap engines to them, and send them off. A year or so later, no more planet. Assuming they in that time didn't beef up their planetary security of course.

Awesome!

1a) Oooh. I forgot about zero point energy. Without even wondering about whether that would work, it clearly shows that you aren't about to hit an absolute maximum with regards to fuel. Excellent answer.

1b) Hrm. I'm a bit more dubious about this. I'm okay with you saying that long-range kinetic weapons traveling at near light speed can be dodged, but just having something that can make that much energy (enough to get a kinetic weapon up to near light speed) means that whatever weapons you are using are going to impart vast amounts of energy into your enemies. Wait. I have no objection to that. Okay.

2) Great answer.

2a) Hmm. I can see why killing a planet would be counterproductive, but I disagree about the atmosphere protecting the planet at those speeds. But I can imagine militaries not wanting to kill planets, and nobody else having the power and desire to, so yeah, that sounds fine to me. At least until the first holy war.

Thank you very much for your excellent answers. I will absolutely apply to this.

[Zeinbrad]

Glad to have you aboard Cong.

[Qeno]

1b) Hrm. I'm a bit more dubious about this. I'm okay with you saying that long-range kinetic weapons traveling at near light speed can be dodged, but just having something that can make that much energy (enough to get a kinetic weapon up to near light speed) means that whatever weapons you are using are going to impart vast amounts of energy into your enemies. Wait. I have no objection to that. Okay.

Well long range kinetic weapons travelling at near light speed can be dodged because it missed and the opposing force knew it was coming then changed course >_>

[Zeinbrad]

By the way, the IC is ready for posting.

The first part (each episode is separated into parts) will be the shortest and a warm up. The next part will set the plot in motion.

[Qeno]

By the way, the IC is ready for posting.

The first part (each episode is separated into parts) will be the shortest and a warm up. The next part will set the plot in motion.

Alright so the first part would be like a prologue?

[Zeinbrad]

By the way, the IC is ready for posting.

The first part (each episode is separated into parts) will be the shortest and a warm up. The next part will set the plot in motion.

Alright so the first part would be like a prologue?

Yes, it will take place five months before the plot event.

[Qeno]

Alright so the first part would be like a prologue?

Yes, it will take place five months before the plot event.

Alright let get this started with