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

[Kyrusia]

Is there a PMT discussion thread?

It's also linked in our thread OP and the "International Incidents (New Player? Click Here!)" sticky, for future reference.

[Balochistan and New York]

Is there a PMT discussion thread?

It's also linked in our thread OP and the "International Incidents (New Player? Click Here!)" sticky, for future reference.

ok thanks!

[Vocenae]

So I've had Battlestar Galactica on the mind recently, and after playing some of the fantastic Infinite Warfare campaign I was pondering one of the most dreaded questions of FT: Space fighters.

Before we go any further, I just want to take a moment and put this disclaimer up:

Note: I am only asking for the opinions of those that are approaching this question from a position of the community's belief in the 4C (Creativity, Consistency, Collaboration and Compromise). I am not looking opinions that promote total realism, adhering completely to the rules of reality and based entirely within the realms of scientific fact aka Reality Emulation. If you cannot answer the question from a viewpoint of the 4C and that of the FT community's beliefs and standards, please refrain from replying, thank you.

The following question is not concerning itself with the feasibility or the realism behind fighters in space versus the Rule of Cool. So long as your fighter is consistent within your own internal stuff, it largely does not matter if you have them or not. If you are going to answer the following question with the intent on discussing space fighter realism versus Rule of Cool, or with a statblock or factbook article with no real discussion value, again please refrain from replying, thank you.

I myself previously had fightercraft in large numbers (because I'm a huge fan of Freespace and Homeworld), but after a conflict in my nation's past I began to ICly move away from having fighters in space because, well, a lot of pilots died. From a OOC standpoint this was also in response to the general 'meh to fighters' stance of the community, and my own acknowledgement that fighters just didn't mesh well with my aesthetic and established strategies of my military (at least concerning fighting in space). However I never completely just tossed fighters to the wayside because I always wanted to have that option, as well as still using fighters and bombers for planetary engagements because that stuff is cool as hell.

However I did move away from using it, but now years later and due to other developments, I've found myself developing fighters once more for dedicated space warfare. But for the question itself which was caused by a discussion on IRC.

Again, please read the above disclaimer if you do not intend on answering the question and instead want to argue a topic that has been beaten beyond death.

What determines a 'long range fighter' in space? My new fighters, for example, are still carrier based, but can make two single lightyear jumps with their FTL core. They are designed for deep striking into enemy territory, largely for bombing and missile strikes on critical targets, with having average dogfight capability. After they strike a target and cannot own the airspace due to the presence of fighters that are better at dogfighting, they then jump back to the carrier and dock for reload or retreat. To me, I feel like that is sufficient range for a fighter craft. It has a very large range in comparison to the size of the fighter and the overwhelmingly huge scale of space (planetary, local Earth-Moon distances AND interstellar space).

However, I'd like to get some thoughts on it so long as they fall within the requirements of the disclaimer. Is that a sufficient range for a carrier dependent fighter craft in space? Should it be more or even less? I'm not looking to make Xwings, however.

So yes, along side those questions I'd also like to know what determines a long range fighter within your nation? How far are the ranges of these fighters, and are they independent or reliant on carriers in order to cross the overwhelmingly huge gulfs of space? I'm not looking for statblocks or entire factbook articles, just some brief discussion on what defines a long range fighter in your nation within the Future Tech community setting.

[Sunset]

Given the vast scales of both the NS-FT-Verse and the RL Galaxy, I would say that any Fighter-scale craft mounting an FTL drive (no matter the capabilities) would fall into the broad classification of a long-range fighter. Could it still have 'attack' or 'interceptor' added on? Certainly, though as always cost/resource requirements would rationally increase as well, along with their required maintenance and logistics.

I don't have a long-range fighter at the moment (though you've got my DoGa hand itching) but I do have a long-range Transit-Class shuttle, which is mostly used for extending the 'spread' of a starship, IE exploring multiple adjacent systems or ferrying VIPs/light cargo from one nearby system to another. As a strike craft it would be horrible, but sometimes you make do with horrible. Another common use is special operations insertion and, in the greater NS-Verse, I could definitely see various long-range fighters from acquired sources being used as a cheap way to insert the various clandestine operatives. After all, the galaxy is a dangerous place and to go unarmed is folly, right? So I think there is a reasonable and rational place for the one-man scout ships / long-range fighter.

DoGa hand itching.

[Lubyak]

So I know you said no wiki pages, but I'mma link the wiki wiki page for my heavy fighter.

For me, all my fighters are capable of FTL, to a limited extent. The primary method by which R.u.B Navy fighter craft operate is for their carrier to launch from a decent distance away from the actual area of combat. While fighters lack the transition drive that provide FTL capabilities for most of the R.u.B Navy, they do mount more traditional 'warp' drives, that grant them FTL capabilities, although at a much lower speed than transition travel. Often, fighters will need to mount external fuel tanks to provide them sufficient range to travel in to both travel to combat and return to their carrier, without the carrier having to expose itself to danger.

While all strike craft are capable of FTL travel, the definition of a heavy fighter for R.u.B strike craft are based upon range and payload capabilities and mission role. When compared to tactical and superiority fighters, which emphasises manoeuvrability, flexibility, and dogfighting capability, heavy fighters like the J.21 emphasise heavier payload capability and range, at the expense of manoeuvrability and other capabilities. Heavy fighters often have ranges comparable to medium bombers and other such craft, especially when fitted with external fuel tanks. Heavy fighters are often used for deep space reconnaissance and escort missions when their superior range is necessary.

Often times, heavy fighters are defined by their reliance on twin engines rather than single engines, as well as significantly heavier weapons and payload capacity. I personally don't want to stick an actual number for range on, but 'longer than normal' fighters is going to have to suffice for my definition.

[Heavonia]

So I know you said no wiki pages, but I'mma link the wiki wiki page for my heavy fighter.

For me, all my fighters are capable of FTL, to a limited extent. The primary method by which R.u.B Navy fighter craft operate is for their carrier to launch from a decent distance away from the actual area of combat. While fighters lack the transition drive that provide FTL capabilities for most of the R.u.B Navy, they do mount more traditional 'warp' drives, that grant them FTL capabilities, although at a much lower speed than transition travel. Often, fighters will need to mount external fuel tanks to provide them sufficient range to travel in to both travel to combat and return to their carrier, without the carrier having to expose itself to danger.

While all strike craft are capable of FTL travel, the definition of a heavy fighter for R.u.B strike craft are based upon range and payload capabilities and mission role. When compared to tactical and superiority fighters, which emphasises manoeuvrability, flexibility, and dogfighting capability, heavy fighters like the J.21 emphasise heavier payload capability and range, at the expense of manoeuvrability and other capabilities. Heavy fighters often have ranges comparable to medium bombers and other such craft, especially when fitted with external fuel tanks. Heavy fighters are often used for deep space reconnaissance and escort missions when their superior range is necessary.

Often times, heavy fighters are defined by their reliance on twin engines rather than single engines, as well as significantly heavier weapons and payload capacity. I personally don't want to stick an actual number for range on, but 'longer than normal' fighters is going to have to suffice for my definition.

MkIVL light fighters of the Heavonian Constabulary pass over a destroyed Uhlan, 35th Day of the Thousandth and First year of the Heavonian Empire.

As my nation is totally not early 20th Century Britain in terms of aesthetics, it operates heavy and light fighters like Lubyak which are based on either single engine fighters or double engine fighters like the Mosquito. Single-engines are more common for ground attack because they are more agile and are more able to rely on terrain etc. for cover, and their range requirement is less than space fighters. Fleet Fighters are used in space sparingly, and mostly for defence in major battles - using targeting information sent from the relevant capital ship they can deploy countermeasures a safer distance from the fleet to defeat solid munitions. This being because Heavonia and the nations its been fighting all tend to use physical munitions rather than directed energy. Other uses include low-key reconnaissance and maintaining fleet presence in the farthest reaches of Heavonian space as they normally have a couple of days supplies, fuel and oxygen on board, so they can remain on-station as a small hangar-deck cruiser flits between patrol routes and maintains a field of patrols.

Other roles include defence of the fleet from nations who do make use of dangerous space fighters, but they're rarely used for offensive purposes.

None of them are really long-range as none of them possess ftl capabilities. ICly there is a research effort to develop FTL drives small enough to fit on shuttlecraft and heavy fighters/light bombers, but this hasn't yet come to fruition. Thus all Heavonian fighters require transport by a larger capital or escort vessel.

[SquareDisc City]

For nations who have both, I agree that the obvious dividing line between "long range" and "short range" fighters is whether or not it has an FTL drive. That's how the UPT does it. In the UPT's case - and I suppose it won't be uncommon - trying to put an FTL drive on a fighter impairs its ability as a fighter or strike craft, which is one reason to not just put FTL drives on all fighters. On the other hand the idea of a small fighter group as the "first look" at something interesting, and therefore their pilots as first characters in an RP, is one of the reasons I've kept FTL fighters (and fighters in general) around.

But maybe another way would be operational style. To call a "long range" fighter something capable of operating in a worthwhile region of space from a fixed (or pretty much fixed) base, while a "short range" fighter requires some means to extend its range if it's to fight anywhere beyond the nearest neighbours. The most common way to extend range is the carrier, but you could do drop tanks or refuelling tankers instead, which might be nice to keep an RP focussed on the fighter pilots. What range is "long range" is of course going to be somewhat fluid, depending on what conflicts your nation is involved in, but then that fluidity is ICly pretty natural anyway.

[Kassaran]

I think something people should be looking at is making something more akin to the Halo definitions of fighters. Most combat takes place between capital ships, fighters don't really act as force projectors for the main ships. Kassaran utilize drones that are roughly the size of the Space shuttle, but that's including heat radiators and multi-stage pulse-drives for general repair, search-and-rescue, and cargo transport alongside the occasional personnel transport. True shuttles that carry people are large and are roughly the size of small ocean liners and can cover as much area as a football stadium including heat-dissipation systems.

Warships are rare, so I won't go into those, but atmospheric-rated ships are primarily SSTO vessels intended to do a few orbits and reenter or be deployed from high orbit and drop down through the atmosphere. If they want to go anywhere in a reasonable amount of time, they have to dock with larger frames. These are generally more combat oriented though they also are sued for VIP excursions, exploration vessels, and a variety of other important single-ship operations that can be done within a distance span of less than 1 million kilometers.

[Nyte]

Considering that none of my fighter craft technically qualify as a "long range" craft, I've recently been thinking of a reasonable work around for this issue myself, and I believe I've found one in an attachable booster/module much like the ones used by the Jedi Starfighters from the Star Wars prequel trilogy, or the fold booster from the anime Macross Plus. Instead of trying to build a fighter around an FTL drive (mine aren't exactly that small), simply mounting a detachable one makes some sense from a certain point of view. Ships could carry a number of them, and they could be brought out for use when necessary, and the fighter could simply eject it/detach it so that it doesn't impede combat capability, and then dock with it again to leave. I could even take it one step further by giving it built-in engines and built in weapons so that it could be used in combat... Perhaps something like this booster. If I go through with this idea, I guess all of my fighters will technically qualify as "long range" fighter craft; to an extent at least.

As for a definition for a long range fighter in my nation, there would not have been one before this idea as my fighters were constrained by their need for a platform to transport them to where they were needed, or were stationed on either a planets surface or one of a variety of space based stations and the like. A booster giving them the ability to travel interstellar distances independent of a carrier would certainly qualify however... Even if they have to cheat a bit to pull it off.

[Sunset]

Considering that none of my fighter craft technically qualify as a "long range" craft, I've recently been thinking of a reasonable work around for this issue myself, and I believe I've found one in an attachable booster/module much like the ones used by the Jedi Starfighters from the Star Wars prequel trilogy, or the fold booster from the anime Macross Plus. Instead of trying to build a fighter around an FTL drive (mine aren't exactly that small), simply mounting a detachable one makes some sense from a certain point of view. Ships could carry a number of them, and they could be brought out for use when necessary, and the fighter could simply eject it/detach it so that it doesn't impede combat capability, and then dock with it again to leave. I could even take it one step further by giving it built-in engines and built in weapons so that it could be used in combat... Perhaps something like this booster. If I go through with this idea, I guess all of my fighters will technically qualify as "long range" fighter craft; to an extent at least.

As for a definition for a long range fighter in my nation, there would not have been one before this idea as my fighters were constrained by their need for a platform to transport them to where they were needed, or were stationed on either a planets surface or one of a variety of space based stations and the like. A booster giving them the ability to travel interstellar distances independent of a carrier would certainly qualify however... Even if they have to cheat a bit to pull it off.

Since your FTL drives are larger, you could go with something like a 'booster spider' that has pylons for mounting X number of fighters. Enough to make the cost reasonable, not so many that you might as well move a carrier instead. The booster could then also act as a C&C node, or even something like an AWACS. Nothing that needs a local crew so you're not adding living space and thus building it out to a light carrier.

[Nyte]

True, but doing so would make it a bigger target as well... I'm still working out the kinks in the idea, but I'm not sure if I like the idea of one booster to move say a squadron of fighters as if it gets destroyed, the squadron is pretty much screwed. I'm actually leaning towards the weaponized booster idea as I can probably pack it full of enough weapons that it would be fairly nasty, and the added utility would make up for the added cost some what. Plus, I don't think spamming them will ever be a thing so the costs wouldn't be too ridiculous either. Ehh, that's why its still a work in progress I guess. I just figured I'd throw it out there as the topic came up.

[Shadowwell]

True, but doing so would make it a bigger target as well... I'm still working out the kinks in the idea, but I'm not sure if I like the idea of one booster to move say a squadron of fighters as if it gets destroyed, the squadron is pretty much screwed. I'm actually leaning towards the weaponized booster idea as I can probably pack it full of enough weapons that it would be fairly nasty, and the added utility would make up for the added cost some what. Plus, I don't think spamming them will ever be a thing so the costs wouldn't be too ridiculous either. Ehh, that's why its still a work in progress I guess. I just figured I'd throw it out there as the topic came up.

You could do something akin to a Drone that would hold the FTL drive or the equivalent. Then that would be able to dock with the fighter or something to enable FTL travel. Another way you could go about it is instead of heavily arming the thing, is you could have the thing be armed with an explosive or the equivalent that in times of desperation would enable the pilot to detonate it causing plenty of destruction, though that would really only work depending.

[Gig em Aggies]

I am completely retooling and overhauling my nations military due to a factbook history rewrite and I'm exploring energy sources just for my terrestrial based navy and not my space based one. I have some ideas for power generation but I would like notes and tips on which may be the best.
I don't want to put in anti-matter or dark matter not really wanting to emulate Futurama or Star Trek right now

List so far:
Arc Reactor- from Iron Man movies
Iridium power cell- from Terminator
Solar power & Hydrogen fuel cell combination
Cold fusion
Energon- from Transformers

Other sources besides anti-matter or dark matter are welcome. To be more precise I want some like nuclear power with its longevity and little waste but without the radioactive waste.

I tried this on another thread and even my own but they pointed me here.

[Sunset]

I am completely retooling and overhauling my nations military due to a factbook history rewrite and I'm exploring energy sources just for my terrestrial based navy and not my space based one. I have some ideas for power generation but I would like notes and tips on which may be the best.
I don't want to put in anti-matter or dark matter not really wanting to emulate Futurama or Star Trek right now

List so far:
Arc Reactor- from Iron Man movies
Iridium power cell- from Terminator
Solar power & Hydrogen fuel cell combination
Cold fusion
Energon- from Transformers

Other sources besides anti-matter or dark matter are welcome. To be more precise I want some like nuclear power with its longevity and little waste but without the radioactive waste.

I tried this on another thread and even my own but they pointed me here.

Regular nuclear fusion will provide exactly this, depending on the particular reactor style used. The Wendelstein 7-X is nearing operational testing, and if theory and design bears out, will provide exactly what you're looking for. My personal suggestion? Take two names that sound like they are from your nation's majority/minority ethnic group, hyphenate them (Alberts-Lord) and give the resulting power plant the characteristics you want. Then you don't need to worry about the specifics; Show us what it does, not how it does it.

[Kyrusia]

I am completely retooling and overhauling my nations military due to a factbook history rewrite and I'm exploring energy sources just for my terrestrial based navy and not my space based one. I have some ideas for power generation but I would like notes and tips on which may be the best.
I don't want to put in anti-matter or dark matter not really wanting to emulate Futurama or Star Trek right now

List so far:
Arc Reactor- from Iron Man movies
Iridium power cell- from Terminator
Solar power & Hydrogen fuel cell combination
Cold fusion
Energon- from Transformers

Other sources besides anti-matter or dark matter are welcome. To be more precise I want some like nuclear power with its longevity and little waste but without the radioactive waste.

I tried this on another thread and even my own but they pointed me here.

To add to Sunset's point... In FT, something called the "Black Box" is common with certain tech situations such as this. Namely: the "Black Box" is just anything that does what you need it to do for the plot (in this instance, generate power). No one knows what really goes on in the "Black Box," spare it involves Science™; an example: insert fuel to "Black Box," "Black Box" gives energy as output. Beyond this, it has whatever characteristics you want/need for the setting or plot. This gives you whatever freedom you need and can adjust the "rules" of your "Black Box" to whatever you are comfortable with (a balance between strengths, like high output or low waste, and weaknesses, such as limited fuel or high instability, is advisable). Of course I've never met anyone who In-Character calls their power generator/core the "Black Box" - usually it has some name, much like how Sunset suggests - but still.

Excusing that, if you are going for a "harder" science-fiction sort of environment , you can essentially throw-out "cold fusion" due to its more... fantastical attestations (though if you're all right with that, you could do some research on LENR and adapt it to a fictional setting as needed; it is a cool name, after all). I'm not well-versed on what the other franchises' power cores have their basis on, but I imagine it is probably close to the sort of "Black Box" described above, with added technobabble. Fusion - likely the deuterium/tritium variant (you can read more here) - is probably your best bet in this scenario (again, assuming a "harder" edge; it is also fairly common, in a variety of forms, in FT - even for stellar vessels due to reasons noted below). The stellarator Sunset suggested is one possible confinement set-up, but there are others that are currently undergoing research - the tokamak being the oldest, if I remember correctly.

Assuming this is for terrestrial uses, you're of course going to need a fuel source. Were you utilizing fusion for a stellar arm, that'd be relatively simple, given hydrogen and helium are the most abundant forms of ordinary matter in the universe. There is a relatively large amount of information available on contemporary hydrogen production, though most appear to be related to steam reforming from hydrocarbons, making such unsustainable (which you may not want). There are other methods, of course, such as thermolysis and electrolysis (from water), but these carry their own pros and cons.

You may find some use from Atomic Rockets (linked in our thread OP links section), a fair staple in the NSFT community - even among those of us who prefer the "softer" side of sci-fi - given its deluge of information on topics such as this; keep in mind, though, it is most certainly looking at things from a "harder" perspective.

Hope that helps!

[The Fedral Union]

Kyru linked a great site... One of my favorites for a fissionpunk universe if I ever thought one up wound be This thing Note.. Don't use those on planets you plan to live on.

[SquareDisc City]

When it comes to power generation reactors, I'd say think more about the properties you'd like it to have. Is running out of fuel for the reactor common, rare, or impossible? Is said fuel easy or hard to get? Is the reactor pretty much safe, or prone to blowing up big time? Does the reactor output plenty of power, or do most ships suffer from not being able to run everything at once? Can the same technologies be used in big and small things, or are there scaling limits? Does it simply produce electricity or 'power' or are there some interesting details? Do you need big heat radiators or are you going to ignore or handwave away that because it makes your ships look ugly? And so on and so on.

Whether you choose to pick a realistic power source you like and then consider its properties and impacts, or pick the properties you like and then choose or make up a power source to fit, I think that's how you can add interest or relevancy to it.

For my part, I used to assume fullerene-confined antimatter, but I might switch 'back' to fusion or fission. Considering those properties:

Running out of fuel is possible, they're finite resources, but I think rare. A bit more common for fission with its lower energy density. Note that reactor fuel and engine propellant are two different things; it's very possible for the reactor to be working fine but the engines to be exhausted, leaving the ship a sitting duck.

Fusion fuel is common as muck. Fission fuel is rather rarer especially if it needs isotopic enrichment. But the specialised antimatter fuel couldn't really be got anywhere but the factories that make it.

Fusion won't boom and fission won't actually big boom. Both however can spew radiation if they go wrong, and radiation poisoning is a nasty way to die. Antimatter of course has a reputation for boom, and my IC backstory is that we thought the UPT reactors were safe despite AM's volatility ... turned out not so much.

Power output - I've never liked the whole "divert power to X and can't run Y" thing so I assume plenty.

Scaling, one of my ideas is fission scales down pretty small whereas fusion reactors have to be larger. A reason not to just do fusion for everything. (And do you think that a fighter where every kilo counts is going to have its small nuclear reactor properly shielded? Nope! Have fun, fighter pilots )

What does it produce? Well for the AM I used to consider the possibility of using the 'spent' fuel (because it had excess matter) for feeding the thrusters, but otherwise probably just power.

Radiators? I'll probably fudge it, or use open-cycle cooling. Don't really want huge glowey spikes on everything.

And so I've got some idea of an aspect of how the spacecraft behave and what kind of ways they can and can't kill the characters crewing them.

[Stormwrath]

To add to Sunset's point... In FT, something called the "Black Box" is common with certain tech situations such as this. Namely: the "Black Box" is just anything that does what you need it to do for the plot (in this instance, generate power). No one knows what really goes on in the "Black Box," spare it involves Science™; an example: insert fuel to "Black Box," "Black Box" gives energy as output. Beyond this, it has whatever characteristics you want/need for the setting or plot. This gives you whatever freedom you need and can adjust the "rules" of your "Black Box" to whatever you are comfortable with (a balance between strengths, like high output or low waste, and weaknesses, such as limited fuel or high instability, is advisable). Of course I've never met anyone who In-Character calls their power generator/core the "Black Box" - usually it has some name, much like how Sunset suggests - but still.

Excusing that, if you are going for a "harder" science-fiction sort of environment , you can essentially throw-out "cold fusion" due to its more... fantastical attestations (though if you're all right with that, you could do some research on LENR and adapt it to a fictional setting as needed; it is a cool name, after all). I'm not well-versed on what the other franchises' power cores have their basis on, but I imagine it is probably close to the sort of "Black Box" described above, with added technobabble. Fusion - likely the deuterium/tritium variant (you can read more here) - is probably your best bet in this scenario (again, assuming a "harder" edge; it is also fairly common, in a variety of forms, in FT - even for stellar vessels due to reasons noted below). The stellarator Sunset suggested is one possible confinement set-up, but there are others that are currently undergoing research - the tokamak being the oldest, if I remember correctly.

Assuming this is for terrestrial uses, you're of course going to need a fuel source. Were you utilizing fusion for a stellar arm, that'd be relatively simple, given hydrogen and helium are the most abundant forms of ordinary matter in the universe. There is a relatively large amount of information available on contemporary hydrogen production, though most appear to be related to steam reforming from hydrocarbons, making such unsustainable (which you may not want). There are other methods, of course, such as thermolysis and electrolysis (from water), but these carry their own pros and cons.

You may find some use from Atomic Rockets (linked in our thread OP links section), a fair staple in the NSFT community - even among those of us who prefer the "softer" side of sci-fi - given its deluge of information on topics such as this; keep in mind, though, it is most certainly looking at things from a "harder" perspective.

Hope that helps!

No one thinks the "black box" is the flight data recorder?

[Gig em Aggies]

How's this sound, sorry no picture webs.com is acting up so I cant upload my picture.

RvB 1 Reactor
Powered by a man portable self-contained 80% pure Polonium reactor core, which produces an estimated maximum 3,937MW but the standard operating range for the reactor is between 900-1,000MW. The RvB1 also provides power to a system of emitters that project a shield between 5-15mm away from the ship’s hull allowing it to move much faster at around 45+knots. Once the self-contained core is depleted there is only 1-3% waste leftover which is then disposed of at a nuclear waste site onshore. It’s estimated that a single RvB1 reactor core can power a single ship for upwards of 60-70 years before being replaced

[Vocenae]

I would suggest using Imgur for hosting pictures. You can make a free account and it is very fast and easy to use.

[Lubyak]

Ooh, ooh are we talking about power generation? My time to ramble on.

The primary means by which ships of the R.u.B Navy and merchant marine generate the power necessary for their systems is the combination of the liquid phlogiston furnace, and the coronatite expansion engine. The primary fuel source for almost all ships is refined liquid phlogiston, although some older vessels retain the ability to burn phlogiston crystals instead. Phlogiston is itself one of the most common chymetic condensations that can be collected, and phlogiston reserves are one of the most important limitation on the Navy's ability to operate at great distances from their home bases. Coronatite is another form of chymetic condensation, and--for purposes of power generation--is carried as a suspension, with individual particle of coronatite contained within a fluid gel like substance, than helps facilitate the coronatite's energy gathering and releasing properties.

In the first stage, liquid phlogiston is pumped from its storage tanks into the ship's furnace. A ship will generally have several furnaces, both to provide redundancy in case of damage and for efficiency of space. In general, a furnace will contain a central 'burner' room, where liquid phlogiston is injected and ignited by conventional means, and both input and output pipes for the coronatite suspension mixture, which will serve as the transfer medium. One of the most popular designs is the 'triple tube' variant, arranged in a triangular pattern, with the outpute pipe at the 'top' point, input points at the bottom two, with the actual furnace area contained within. De-activated 'cool' coronatite is pumped into the reactor, and then through a series of tubes within the furnace to the output pipe. Over the course of the transfer to the output pipe, the coronatite is exposed to the burning phlogiston, which converts the coronatite into a 'hot' active state.

The activated coronatite is then drawn into the expansion engine, both by active pumps and through passive forces. In the expansion engine, the energy from the hot coronatite is extracted, and converted into usable electrical power for the ship to use to power its impellers, shields, weapons, life support, and other systems. To do this, the coronatite is compressed and expanded by a series of pistons, each of which consists of a carefully engineered orichalcum-flanelite crystal lattice, mounted on top of a relatively standard structure. When exposed to compressed hot coronatite, the crystal structure draws energy out during the expansion phase, in the form of usable electricity. Usually, a properly energised volume of hot coronatite can be expanded four times before it has been sufficiently cooled as to render further compression cycles uneconomical. At this point, the now cool coronatite is pumped back around to the furnaces so the cycle can continue, although some ships feature a 'condenser' wherein the cool coronatite is allowed to discharge any remaining energy it may be carrying before it is re-exposed to the furnaces.

Generally, a ships ability to generate power is dependent on how much hot coronatite it can energise and expand at anyone time. As each 'bank' of expansion engines is limited to a quadruple expansion for economical energy generation, ship power generation is generally determined by how many banks of engines it mounts. A destroyer may only mount a single bank double expansion engine, while a dreadnought can require a quad bank quadruple expansion engine to fuel its energy needs.

Of course, the phlogiston-coronatite energy generation system is not without flaws. Perhaps the foremost and most obvious from an external perspective is the nature of phlogiston burning itself. Phlogiston ignition generates a substantial amount of miasma as a waste product, and--if allowed to build up--this miasma could rupture furnaces or even detonate, crippling the ship. As a result, miasma from operation of the ship's furnaces must be continually vented to prevent such a build up from occurring, requiring the prominent funnels visible on most all R.u.B craft. In addition, the amount of phlogiston combusted to energise the coronatite must be carefully monitored, for it is is possible to 'over energises' the coronatite suspension, resulting in potentially unstable, or even dangerous, discharges of energy when the suspension is compressed. Furthermore, the orichalcum-flanelite crystal structures necessary for the actual generation of power are difficult to manufacture in bulk--especially at the massive scales required by capital ship engines--and can easily result in a major bottleneck during periods of rapid naval construction. In addition, many of the conventional material components of both furnaces and expansion engines must be constructed of very high quality materials in order to contain and withstand the stresses they are put under. This means there are relatively few manufacturers or facilities within the R.u.B Union capable of making high quality power generating systems, creating both additional expense, and another potential bottleneck.

[Senkaku]

I lowkey like the funnels that Lub puts on the RuB's ships, but I want to keep a little more hard science than having miasma and stuff, so I was considering having funnel-like structures on some of mine as intake-outtake vents for Curie point radiators. Does anyone else have novel ways of disposing of waste heat on your ships?

[Kassaran]

I lowkey like the funnels that Lub puts on the RuB's ships, but I want to keep a little more hard science than having miasma and stuff, so I was considering having funnel-like structures on some of mine as intake-outtake vents for Curie point radiators. Does anyone else have novel ways of disposing of waste heat on your ships?

Atomic manipulation of the particles to slow them down and create alternate energy in other systems. This doesn't dissipate all energy, but it works for most of it. The powerplants used aboard most of my vessels are incredibly small because there's no need for lots of propulsion or high-energy systems. Typical reactors are similar in size to modern-day submarine powerplants, the usage of some venting is present, but is rare and also discharged towards the rear along specially marked exit vectors so as to not influence the wake signature left behind by the isotopic transponders aboard the craft.

[North Calaveras]

I want my nation to get back into sci-fi and I'm thinking about being a Military-Industrial Cartel, any thoughts?

[The United Dominion]

I want my nation to get back into sci-fi and I'm thinking about being a Military-Industrial Cartel, any thoughts?

Well, it's vague. So, yeah, good start. Got anything else thought out?