Future Tech Advice and Assistance Thread [O.O.C.]

[Lubyak]

there's probably some sort of symbolic element there that I'm unaware of.

Many members, one sword.

I agree with the others that the dot wings seem...off. I think a way to fix it might be to use something like the Quaternion Eagle, with the dots being held on some kind of backing.

[Senkaku]

Many members, one sword.

I agree with the others that the dot wings seem...off. I think a way to fix it might be to use something like the Quaternion Eagle, with the dots being held on some kind of backing.

Yeah, some sort of background seems needed. Perhaps they could be normal wings, but the number of feathers could symbolize the number of members?

[Genomita]

I''m thinking about introducing a kind of "social currency" for my nation that people visiting other nations can use to get stuff since Genomita doesn't use a currency system, physical or digital. A person's amount of social currency would depend on their contribution to society, how much and and well they work, wether or not they've contributed to any local or nationwide projects etc. So when they decide to take a vacation in another country they actually have a way to get stuff instead of having to bring everything with them.

I think the first time I encountered a system like this was in the Eclipse phase rpg. I think the expansion book Rimward should have a better description of how such a program might work, but I have yet to get my hands on said book.

Any thoughts or suggestions?

[SquareDisc City]

What stops it just getting used as actual money, is my thought. The "social currency" is issued by the government in limited amounts, and can presumably easily be transferred to others and exchanged for foreign currencies.

[RawHein]

I''m thinking about introducing a kind of "social currency" for my nation that people visiting other nations can use to get stuff since Genomita doesn't use a currency system, physical or digital. A person's amount of social currency would depend on their contribution to society, how much and and well they work, wether or not they've contributed to any local or nationwide projects etc. So when they decide to take a vacation in another country they actually have a way to get stuff instead of having to bring everything with them.

I think the first time I encountered a system like this was in the Eclipse phase rpg. I think the expansion book Rimward should have a better description of how such a program might work, but I have yet to get my hands on said book.

Any thoughts or suggestions?

Sounds like what Oprusa does. Each person has a kind of credit card, that holds a certain value of "luxury licence" which is calculated based on their criticality, which is basically how replaceable they are and how important their job is, minus any disincentives from recent criminal activity, plus some social incentives (eg +0.05 for walking home in a peak traffic period). LL can be spent on nice furniture, a better apartment, fresh bread delivered every week, a good data connection etc. However, it doesn't renew - buying luxuries lowers the value until you return some, get a better job or upskill. As such it's used to buy continuous things, like a subscription of fresh fruit delivery instead of just buying fruit once.

[Neornith]

I''m thinking about introducing a kind of "social currency" for my nation that people visiting other nations can use to get stuff since Genomita doesn't use a currency system, physical or digital. A person's amount of social currency would depend on their contribution to society, how much and and well they work, wether or not they've contributed to any local or nationwide projects etc. So when they decide to take a vacation in another country they actually have a way to get stuff instead of having to bring everything with them.

I think the first time I encountered a system like this was in the Eclipse phase rpg. I think the expansion book Rimward should have a better description of how such a program might work, but I have yet to get my hands on said book.

Any thoughts or suggestions?

Just a couple questions first, if you have no currency in your nation (completely feasible if you want) how would your nation make a currency that other nations would recognize and exchange? Secondly what would back your currency from your nation to make other nations recognize it?

While the Communist approach might work within your nation it's kinda hard trade labor out to other nations for them try recognize your currency

Just a couple thoughts for you to consider

[Northwest Slobovia]

Corrected - the wreath can't be helped, as it comes from GESO's emblem.

To be honest, I like the sword with the laurel. But I'd simplify the rest more than other people would: drop everything but the "GRF", which I'd run down the blade.

I don't know what to tell you about the symbolism you want ("many members, one sword") except that I agree the dots are clutter. Maybe a lot fewer of them, in a circle, surrounding the sword-with-laurel, on a dark background? Yeah, that sounds a lot like a militarized EU flag. Sue me.

Edit:: Maybe write out the motto below the sword, skip the dots?

[Sunset]

Re: Geno

I was thinking of this just the other day/week with regards to our own future with the increasing automation and productivity of some of our societies. What struck me was a similar system to the above but because so many of our everyday items are artificially expensive (brand instead of actual resources consumed) we need/should be able to purchase those products without regard to artificial worth.

A point system;
Individual stability as determined by past performance and a psychological profile. The more stable your behavior, the more points. Those who will steward their resources well? More points.

Holding a job. Doesn't matter what, though obviously a job that requires stability will help with the above. All jobs are equal, jobs don't confir perks. Very egalitarian.

Points would operate on a +100 system where the amount of points left after a transaction -100 determine the percent that the total is reduced by. For example if someone has 500 points and buys something worth less (in resources required) than 400 points the item is 'free'. Something that costs 450 points would be expensive and leave them with (500-450=50%) 250 points.

This would be designed to encourage responsible activity and penalize those who are reckless. Gaming the system would consist of careful behavior while one is young until one has the points to behave as they will and hopefully by that time habit will be behavior.

/written in a TSA line.

[Lubyak]

I''m thinking about introducing a kind of "social currency" for my nation that people visiting other nations can use to get stuff since Genomita doesn't use a currency system, physical or digital. A person's amount of social currency would depend on their contribution to society, how much and and well they work, wether or not they've contributed to any local or nationwide projects etc. So when they decide to take a vacation in another country they actually have a way to get stuff instead of having to bring everything with them.

I think the first time I encountered a system like this was in the Eclipse phase rpg. I think the expansion book Rimward should have a better description of how such a program might work, but I have yet to get my hands on said book.

Any thoughts or suggestions?

Just a couple questions first, if you have no currency in your nation (completely feasible if you want) how would your nation make a currency that other nations would recognize and exchange? Secondly what would back your currency from your nation to make other nations recognize it?

While the Communist approach might work within your nation it's kinda hard trade labor out to other nations for them try recognize your currency

Just a couple thoughts for you to consider

It could be backed by the government's own hard currency/precious metals reserves. Make it so that the vouchers are exchangeable via the government for hard currency at a set rate, and--so long as that rate is roughly in line with the market--you should be able to make it work. At least that's how I'd go about doing it.

[The United Dominion]

Corrected - the wreath can't be helped, as it comes from GESO's emblem.

To be honest, I like the sword with the laurel. But I'd simplify the rest more than other people would: drop everything but the "GRF", which I'd run down the blade.

I don't know what to tell you about the symbolism you want ("many members, one sword") except that I agree the dots are clutter. Maybe a lot fewer of them, in a circle, surrounding the sword-with-laurel, on a dark background? Yeah, that sounds a lot like a militarized EU flag. Sue me.

Edit:: Maybe write out the motto below the sword, skip the dots?

Yeah, I would definitely say that there's a solid argument against over-symbolizing. Too much symbolism and everything just sort of gets lost in the mess. Simple design is sometimes the best design.

[The Fedral Union]

Re: Geno

I was thinking of this just the other day/week with regards to our own future with the increasing automation and productivity of some of our societies. What struck me was a similar system to the above but because so many of our everyday items are artificially expensive (brand instead of actual resources consumed) we need/should be able to purchase those products without regard to artificial worth.

A point system;
Individual stability as determined by past performance and a psychological profile. The more stable your behavior, the more points. Those who will steward their resources well? More points.

Holding a job. Doesn't matter what, though obviously a job that requires stability will help with the above. All jobs are equal, jobs don't confir perks. Very egalitarian.

Points would operate on a +100 system where the amount of points left after a transaction -100 determine the percent that the total is reduced by. For example if someone has 500 points and buys something worth less (in resources required) than 400 points the item is 'free'. Something that costs 450 points would be expensive and leave them with (500-450=50%) 250 points.

This would be designed to encourage responsible activity and penalize those who are reckless. Gaming the system would consist of careful behavior while one is young until one has the points to behave as they will and hopefully by that time habit will be behavior.

/written in a TSA line.

In all honesty currency as we all know is just a medium of exchange, now others are right in respect that there are other systems of exchange. Such as what sunset pointed out. There is also something known as Social capital, something a lot of us on these forums use weather we know it or not. Cultural capital is also another thing to consider, there are also a notion of reciprocity, and gift economies. Now currency is of course the easiest medium to use, and it doesn't apply to just hard cash or valuable goods. But to many things, including barter.

Our people use our version of credits to facilitate a standardized ease of transaction in and out of our nation, but I can easily see credits being tied to any of the above or simply being fiat. I can imagine your people would if they wanted to trade with the outside galaxy want a currency. So you would have a dualistic system with currency for trade and some other form of capital or economic exchange for internal use.

[Genomita]

What stops it just getting used as actual money, is my thought. The "social currency" is issued by the government in limited amounts, and can presumably easily be transferred to others and exchanged for foreign currencies.

The thing is that it's not meant to or available to spend within the nation. Resources and augmentations are made available and provided based on one's contribution to the Star Community. Everybody has their basic needs met, but everything else becomes available by applying yourself or can be borrowed from someone else or public sources. That can mean earning a promotion by proving you have the skills required for the position, by working extra hours (particularily when it's really needed), by volunteering for projects within your caste or across castes and generally being a responsible and productive citizen. The other point is that while it can be spent on things from other nations, it's not really meant to be used for vanity items. Sure, there are no laws against spending it on things you don't need, but you should probably make sure your needs are met first, since most other nations don't provide their citizens or tourists with everything they need.

Re: Geno

I was thinking of this just the other day/week with regards to our own future with the increasing automation and productivity of some of our societies. What struck me was a similar system to the above but because so many of our everyday items are artificially expensive (brand instead of actual resources consumed) we need/should be able to purchase those products without regard to artificial worth.

A point system;
Individual stability as determined by past performance and a psychological profile. The more stable your behavior, the more points. Those who will steward their resources well? More points.

Holding a job. Doesn't matter what, though obviously a job that requires stability will help with the above. All jobs are equal, jobs don't confir perks. Very egalitarian.

Points would operate on a +100 system where the amount of points left after a transaction -100 determine the percent that the total is reduced by. For example if someone has 500 points and buys something worth less (in resources required) than 400 points the item is 'free'. Something that costs 450 points would be expensive and leave them with (500-450=50%) 250 points.

This would be designed to encourage responsible activity and penalize those who are reckless. Gaming the system would consist of careful behavior while one is young until one has the points to behave as they will and hopefully by that time habit will be behavior.

/written in a TSA line.

I like this idea, especially the fact that it encourages responsible behaviour both in daily life and in spending. Tourists from other nations could be given a small allowance in points so they have something to work with until they reach their destination. The allowance could be larger if the tourists intend to make some manner of contribution to the local habitat and make good on the promise, with half or so of the points available to them at the start and the rest becoming available to them once they made their contribution. What do you think?

And yes, I suppose it could be backed by the governments reserves, or resources could be traded directly depending on their actual worth or use.

[Oswelia]

It makes me wonder what other sort of currency systems could be in place. How would a star empire grow if they only used barter because of tradition, or another who forbade trading, only allowing citizens to "gift" items to each other. There are many examples in real life like these, but I've never thought about them on such a big scale. I would love to hear more on what others think about such unorthodox systems.

[RawHein]

I've completed two revisions in response to the criticisms presented - they're both versions along the same "chain" so one is later/better than the other, but they're both fairly radical so there's value in seeing both. Wrt the "dot wings" - no, I'm not removing them. I consider them a central part of the emblem, and I'm certainly not making an actual wing from scratch - placing fifty-two dots manually, and then erasing and redoing twenty-three to make the wings flow better was more than enough work. In its stead I've added "guide lines" that should make them more intuitive.

[Dalviric UIA]

I wonder, is the use of strange matter common in FT?

[Kyrusia]

I wonder, is the use of strange matter common in FT?

I would say that probably depends on what is meant by the term "strange matter": whether we're talking a particular form of matter containing strange quarks or general "weird matter" of the fictional/handwaved variety.

I've seen both forms thrown around in fluff for FT, though the latter far more than the former (outside of plot devices; see: strangelet, strange star, etc.). It - like concepts such as "dark matter" and "dark energy" - tend to come-up in relation to so-called "Black Box" toys: things like FTL drives, ship powertrains, etc.; in other words, a device/concept where the details are handwaved, but due to fluff and deliberately-designed (by the player) concept fault and/or function mechanics, certain details are known (like the "Black Box" needs strange matter to function).

[SquareDisc City]

If you're using the term in the scientific sense, then I've not seen it often. It might have similar properties to the sci-fi depiction of "neutronium", a super-dense and super-strong solid usable as spacecraft armour and as highly-penetrating projectiles. The idea of strangelets as stable particles that can absorb more matter will give similar effects to a small black hole, including making them really dangerous things to handle.

In a looser sense, well non-standard matter is incredible common in sci-fi. Usually the theoretical details aren't addressed, and a material is simply assumed with properties the author likes.

[Lubyak]

I've completed two revisions in response to the criticisms presented - they're both versions along the same "chain" so one is later/better than the other, but they're both fairly radical so there's value in seeing both. Wrt the "dot wings" - no, I'm not removing them. I consider them a central part of the emblem, and I'm certainly not making an actual wing from scratch - placing fifty-two dots manually, and then erasing and redoing twenty-three to make the wings flow better was more than enough work. In its stead I've added "guide lines" that should make them more intuitive.

(Image)

(Image)

DEFINITELY like v.15 better. v.14 just has too much going on, but v15 seems like a really good mix of all elements.

[Senkaku]

I've completed two revisions in response to the criticisms presented - they're both versions along the same "chain" so one is later/better than the other, but they're both fairly radical so there's value in seeing both. Wrt the "dot wings" - no, I'm not removing them. I consider them a central part of the emblem, and I'm certainly not making an actual wing from scratch - placing fifty-two dots manually, and then erasing and redoing twenty-three to make the wings flow better was more than enough work. In its stead I've added "guide lines" that should make them more intuitive.

(Image)

(Image)

DEFINITELY like v.15 better. v.14 just has too much going on, but v15 seems like a really good mix of all elements.

Agreed.

[Dalviric UIA]

I wonder, is the use of strange matter common in FT?

I would say that probably depends on what is meant by the term "strange matter": whether we're talking a particular form of matter containing strange quarks or general "weird matter" of the fictional/handwaved variety.

I've seen both forms thrown around in fluff for FT, though the latter far more than the former (outside of plot devices; see: strangelet, strange star, etc.). It - like concepts such as "dark matter" and "dark energy" - tend to come-up in relation to so-called "Black Box" toys: things like FTL drives, ship powertrains, etc.; in other words, a device/concept where the details are handwaved, but due to fluff and deliberately-designed (by the player) concept fault and/or function mechanics, certain details are known (like the "Black Box" needs strange matter to function).

If you're using the term in the scientific sense, then I've not seen it often. It might have similar properties to the sci-fi depiction of "neutronium", a super-dense and super-strong solid usable as spacecraft armour and as highly-penetrating projectiles. The idea of strangelets as stable particles that can absorb more matter will give similar effects to a small black hole, including making them really dangerous things to handle.

In a looser sense, well non-standard matter is incredible common in sci-fi. Usually the theoretical details aren't addressed, and a material is simply assumed with properties the author likes.

I'm guessing a lot of people ask for the "non-standard" matter as well?
Anyways, thanks! Appreciate the answers.

[Hittanryan]

As a side project I was toying around with a sort of harder sci-fi setting and ran into an issue. I've got a technical question that I can't seem to find a straight answer to regarding capital ship-scale main weapons, namely choosing between mass driver and laser weaponry.

DISCLAIMER 1: I don't like post-scarcity economies or utopian societies because it's hard to establish actual stakes (if everybody already can make everything they need for free, why fight over anything aside from pure ideology? And why would virulently opposed ideologies even arise in such a prosperous society?). This setting will still have actual national entities, certain scarce resources are considered strategic (namely helium-3 and antimatter), and settling a new star system takes a long time, usually decades. Assume, therefore, that resources are not unlimited. No replicators, no converting light to matter, no pocket dimensions, no teleportation, no magic nanotechnology, no alchemy, no capes.

DISCLAIMER 2: If people generally prefer Rule of Cool for FT and would prefer not to bother looking into this issue, I will understand. This all has to do with the inner workings of speculative technology which many people probably won't care to explore to any degree of technical detail. The subject has touched off plenty of snide arguments in the depths of various sci-fi forums, usually by people who seem to just prefer one or the other because they think it's cooler. Now, if I haven't scared you off, the problem is spoilered below.

These weapons are intended to be the largest capital ships' main guns, weapons powerful enough to cripple an equivalent ship in a single shot under ideal conditions, powerful enough to overwhelm a comparable ship's defenses, and with far greater range than other ships. I know the tendency in movies is to show ships blasting away at each other with volley after volley with each shot doing little damage, but really if it took that long to kill another ship, the military would seek more powerful guns. Think about RL tanks, you wouldn't consider the gun on a main battle tank to be effective if it can only kill an enemy tank with a dozen lucky hits.

The reason I'm agonizing a bit over this issue is that the strength of these weapons will set a sort of baseline for the setting. It will help determine energy consumption of the biggest and baddest capital ship and set a ceiling on everything below it. I don't want to find out later that something else could be far more devastating than what is supposed to be the equivalent of a battleship cannon. I am attempting to determine what type of weapon is best suited to this role: a mass driver or high-frequency laser. Particle beams and plasma weapons seem to have a general problem with blooming even in space, which would make them unsuited to this specific role (though they might be used in other capacities). I have two conundrums which I wonder if harder sci-fi enthusiasts wouldn't mind taking a crack at.

Big problem 1: Range

Mass drivers theoretically outrange lasers, which diffuse over long distances despite collimation. In space, mass driver slugs will more or less maintain their kinetic energy until they collide with something, and their kinetic energy is what determines their killing power. This implies that mass drivers have theoretically unlimited range. At long range, however, a target may be able to evade mass driver slugs if they are detected early (which is likely using IR sensors) and if the delay between firing and impact is long enough for the target ship to maneuver sufficiently. If the mass driver does not fire projectiles at relativistic speeds, then the laser might be the better option at standoff ranges. The mass driver's accuracy might be too poor at that range to be practical.

If a mass driver can accelerate slugs to some substantial fraction of the speed of light (0.3-0.7c), however, it might be competitive and might be able to hit distant targets with comparable accuracy to the laser. At this point it all comes down to the laser's effective range, which I can't seem to find consistent estimates on. At what range will an x-ray laser diffuse to the point that it cannot seriously damage its target? Is this distance appreciably longer or shorter than the effective range of a relativistic mass driver?.

Big problem 2: Energy and heat management

Will a mass driver or laser require orders of magnitude more energy than the other for an equivalent killing power over the same range in space? Which, if either, will be able to sustain higher average rates of fire over the course of a battle? Will heat management limit a laser's rate of fire substantially compared to a mass driver?

On bomb-pumped lasers: Would a bomb-pumped laser beat the mass driver (or vice versa) in electrical energy consumption (without sacrificing killing power or range)? If a bomb-pumped laser would be more efficient in terms of energy consumption, wouldn't it also lose its supposed logistics advantage for its gain in energy efficiency over the mass driver? That is to say, if a nuclear warhead had to be detonated for each firing, wouldn't the logistics and maintenance burden of a bomb-pumped laser be appreciably greater than that of a mass driver? Could suitable dense plasmas (the active media for X-ray lasers) be generated through means other than nuclear blasts? Would plasma from a helium-3/deuterium fusion reactor potentially work? Would heat management be better or worse than a non bomb-pumped laser?

[Ella2 6]

I've completed two revisions in response to the criticisms presented - they're both versions along the same "chain" so one is later/better than the other, but they're both fairly radical so there's value in seeing both. Wrt the "dot wings" - no, I'm not removing them. I consider them a central part of the emblem, and I'm certainly not making an actual wing from scratch - placing fifty-two dots manually, and then erasing and redoing twenty-three to make the wings flow better was more than enough work. In its stead I've added "guide lines" that should make them more intuitive.

(Image)

(Image)

DEFINITELY like v.15 better. v.14 just has too much going on, but v15 seems like a really good mix of all elements.

I second that.

As a side project I was toying around with a sort of harder sci-fi setting and ran into an issue. I've got a technical question that I can't seem to find a straight answer to regarding capital ship-scale main weapons, namely choosing between mass driver and laser weaponry.

DISCLAIMER 1: I don't like post-scarcity economies or utopian societies because it's hard to establish actual stakes (if everybody already can make everything they need for free, why fight over anything aside from pure ideology? And why would virulently opposed ideologies even arise in such a prosperous society?). This setting will still have actual national entities, certain scarce resources are considered strategic (namely helium-3 and antimatter), and settling a new star system takes a long time, usually decades. Assume, therefore, that resources are not unlimited. No replicators, no converting light to matter, no pocket dimensions, no teleportation, no magic nanotechnology, no alchemy, no capes.

DISCLAIMER 2: If people generally prefer Rule of Cool for FT and would prefer not to bother looking into this issue, I will understand. This all has to do with the inner workings of speculative technology which many people probably won't care to explore to any degree of technical detail. The subject has touched off plenty of snide arguments in the depths of various sci-fi forums, usually by people who seem to just prefer one or the other because they think it's cooler. Now, if I haven't scared you off, the problem is spoilered below.
These weapons are intended to be the largest capital ships' main guns, weapons powerful enough to cripple an equivalent ship in a single shot under ideal conditions, powerful enough to overwhelm a comparable ship's defenses, and with far greater range than other ships. I know the tendency in movies is to show ships blasting away at each other with volley after volley with each shot doing little damage, but really if it took that long to kill another ship, the military would seek more powerful guns. Think about RL tanks, you wouldn't consider the gun on a main battle tank to be effective if it can only kill an enemy tank with a dozen lucky hits.

The reason I'm agonizing a bit over this issue is that the strength of these weapons will set a sort of baseline for the setting. It will help determine energy consumption of the biggest and baddest capital ship and set a ceiling on everything below it. I don't want to find out later that something else could be far more devastating than what is supposed to be the equivalent of a battleship cannon. I am attempting to determine what type of weapon is best suited to this role: a mass driver or high-frequency laser. Particle beams and plasma weapons seem to have a general problem with blooming even in space, which would make them unsuited to this specific role (though they might be used in other capacities). I have two conundrums which I wonder if harder sci-fi enthusiasts wouldn't mind taking a crack at.

Big problem 1: Range

Mass drivers theoretically outrange lasers, which diffuse over long distances despite collimation. In space, mass driver slugs will more or less maintain their kinetic energy until they collide with something, and their kinetic energy is what determines their killing power. This implies that mass drivers have theoretically unlimited range. At long range, however, a target may be able to evade mass driver slugs if they are detected early (which is likely using IR sensors) and if the delay between firing and impact is long enough for the target ship to maneuver sufficiently. If the mass driver does not fire projectiles at relativistic speeds, then the laser might be the better option at standoff ranges. The mass driver's accuracy might be too poor at that range to be practical.

If a mass driver can accelerate slugs to some substantial fraction of the speed of light (0.3-0.7c), however, it might be competitive and might be able to hit distant targets with comparable accuracy to the laser. At this point it all comes down to the laser's effective range, which I can't seem to find consistent estimates on. At what range will an x-ray laser diffuse to the point that it cannot seriously damage its target? Is this distance appreciably longer or shorter than the effective range of a relativistic mass driver?.

Big problem 2: Energy and heat management

Will a mass driver or laser require orders of magnitude more energy than the other for an equivalent killing power over the same range in space? Which, if either, will be able to sustain higher average rates of fire over the course of a battle? Will heat management limit a laser's rate of fire substantially compared to a mass driver?

On bomb-pumped lasers: Would a bomb-pumped laser beat the mass driver (or vice versa) in electrical energy consumption (without sacrificing killing power or range)? If a bomb-pumped laser would be more efficient in terms of energy consumption, wouldn't it also lose its supposed logistics advantage for its gain in energy efficiency over the mass driver? That is to say, if a nuclear warhead had to be detonated for each firing, wouldn't the logistics and maintenance burden of a bomb-pumped laser be appreciably greater than that of a mass driver? Could suitable dense plasmas (the active media for X-ray lasers) be generated through means other than nuclear blasts? Would plasma from a helium-3/deuterium fusion reactor potentially work? Would heat management be better or worse than a non bomb-pumped laser?

I'm not a specialist, and nor am I experienced in this subject (if you can't tell from my post count - or lack thereof) But I think that you may also want to consider the resources needed to build the mass driver slugs and the energy consumption for a laser.

With your bomb-pumped laser, it may be necessary for you to take a look at the power source that your normal laser beams feed off of. Say, for example, if your ship was to be powered by a nuclear reactor, then it may not be economically feasible to release more nuclear energy each shot for a bomb-pumped laser. If that is the case, I would personally stick to the normal lasers.

As for mass drivers, I think the mass of the projectile is also important to consider. If the slug was to be made of tungsten, for example, it would require a greater force to accelerate as opposed to a titanium or steel projectile.

It would be a lot more reasonable for a civilisation with limited resources to use a mass driver as the projectile slug itself is typically more energy efficient inside a void. When at a long range, your mass driver would be more effective at longer ranges, if it travelled at relativistic speeds. This it mainly due to the fact that the slug is a solid, as opposed to a beam of light which would, like you said, eventually diffuse over a distance. (Inverse Square Law also means that a laser loses power over distance).

I'm probably just repeating your points, raising more questions and going over what you've already thought of instead of answering the question, so I'll stop here. If anyone else would like to chime in, go for it. I'm lacking knowledge in the area of mass drivers so I'm learning too!

[Sunset]

As a side project I was toying around with a sort of harder sci-fi setting and ran into an issue. I've got a technical question that I can't seem to find a straight answer to regarding capital ship-scale main weapons, namely choosing between mass driver and laser weaponry.

I think there are a lot more issues here than what you've mentioned. The biggest one, to me, is that a hard ft ship isn't necessarily bigger to mount bigger guns but to mount more guns.

Take the target ship's potential movement in all directions, take the distance between your ship and their ship, the time it takes for your sensor method to go there and back, do some math, and this will give you a giant ovoid that you have to fill with fire - either shells or beams - to even have a chance to hit your target. The more guns you can mount the better your chances. The closer you get the better your chances.

Given that math, lasers are the better weapon since they will occupy more of that envelope - even if for a moment - and thus increase that chance. They are also versatile since you can use that same laser to (try) to destroy incoming missiles. Plus they also have less mechanically complex systems. No ammunition feed and it is a heck of a lot easier to replace some severed cables than an ammunition feed belt.

Where I would see mass drivers taking a role is in the siege role. Large single shot weapons for destroying stations, body installations, shipyards, and other immobile targets. At that point it would be likely better from a resource standpoint to build a floating space gun - just a mass driver that can be towed into place and used in that role. Or as bait because of that previous math.

[Hittanryan]

Ella: thanks for the input. Sometimes a sounding board helps in itself.

Sunset: I think there might have been some miscommunication here. The type of weapon I was looking for would probably require some steep power requirements. It wouldn't be feasible to mount a ton of these things, in fact a single one of these guns might take up a substantial volume inside the ship. They might even be spinal mounted.

Also, correct me if I misunderstand you but are you basically suggesting that the ships just try to fill a given volume with fire rather than attempt to target something accurately? These seems like it would cause a massive logistics burden by wasting power and ammunition. In this setting fusion power requires helium-3, which is somewhat analogous to modern-day petroleum in that it is scarce, requires engineers and expensive exploration projects to exploit, and must be shipped from gas giants. Wasting power means wasting fuel, which means wasting money and resources that are finite in this setting. If you make the guns smaller, furthermore, they won't be as effective at penetrating defense, which means they fail in their intended purpose. To go back to the tank analogy I used before, a given cannon is generally either able to penetrate a tank's frontal armor or it can't.

Furthermore, range is a key aspect of the design of these weapons. The types of engagements fought at their effective ranges would be most akin to an artillery duel in MT. A fleet lacking this long-range option would find itself at a serious disadvantage if there's some big gun picking them off with impunity, especially if they had no means of closing distance quickly.

For volume of fire at shorter ranges, I planned on having more weapon emplacements. Lasers would certainly be used as CIWS and fighter defense.

[Sunset]

Sunset: I think there might have been some miscommunication here. The type of weapon I was looking for would probably require some steep power requirements. It wouldn't be feasible to mount a ton of these things, in fact a single one of these guns might take up a substantial volume inside the ship. They might even be spinal mounted.

Also, correct me if I misunderstand you but are you basically suggesting that the ships just try to fill a given volume with fire rather than attempt to target something accurately? These seems like it would cause a massive logistics burden by wasting power and ammunition. In this setting fusion power requires helium-3, which is somewhat analogous to modern-day petroleum in that it is scarce, requires engineers and expensive exploration projects to exploit, and must be shipped from gas giants. Wasting power means wasting fuel, which means wasting money and resources that are finite in this setting. If you make the guns smaller, furthermore, they won't be as effective at penetrating defense, which means they fail in their intended purpose. To go back to the tank analogy I used before, a given cannon is generally either able to penetrate a tank's frontal armor or it can't.

Furthermore, range is a key aspect of the design of these weapons. The types of engagements fought at their effective ranges would be most akin to an artillery duel in MT. A fleet lacking this long-range option would find itself at a serious disadvantage if there's some big gun picking them off with impunity, especially if they had no means of closing distance quickly.

For volume of fire at shorter ranges, I planned on having more weapon emplacements. Lasers would certainly be used as CIWS and fighter defense.

No miscommunication. If you do the math and figure out how large that fire envelope is, that spinal mounted weapon - no matter how 'carefully' targeted it is - will miss essentially every single time. Let's say you're engaging at 1 light second - 300,000 kilometers rounded - and the target has a potential movement from maneuvering thrusters alone of 300 m/s. That's what the shuttle had. So in that 1 second that it would take for your radar (or even the light bouncing off the target ship) to return to your sensor system and -assuming- no particular computational latency, movement of the weapon housing (whole ship in the case of a spinal weapon), etc, that ship (the elderly space shuttle) has now potentially moved anywhere inside a 600 m circle (parallel to your own ship). The shuttle is only 9m in diameter, 60m long. It now fills only 1/523rd of that circle.

You miss. Over and over, you miss.

Close with the target and it gets easier, right? But during that time, if your opponent has 10 lesser strength weapons instead of 1 very large, they are more than likely going to hit you several times. And they can just keep moving away to keep the math in their favor. Now that is one area where a mass driver could be more effective than a laser - a self-adjusting munition could reduce those chances by a lot, depending on its own potential maneuvering. However, it will be slower. That's the inherent advantage of lasers - always light speed. So your fire envelop gets larger and the self-guided munition 'maybe' lowers that fire envelope enough to offset the disadvantage.

To add to that, then you have the question of armor. Yes, you can add enough armor that you won't get a penetrating shot from one of those lesser guns. At least not on the first or maybe even second or fifth hit. But that means more mass, which means less maneuvering for you. Your ship is now easier to hit because your fire envelope is smaller. Yes, you might get lucky. But he will probably get lucky many more times than you and you've now lost your sensor masts, some damage to your weapon emitter, possibly some thruster damage. None of these might be killing blows but they will degrade your combat effectiveness and make that one shot much less likely to hit.