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

[Kyrusia]

To New Tauri Republic

what is the maximum density a plasma can be before turning into quark gluon pasma?

According to a cursory glance at Wikipedia, QGP is theoretically (working inside of a presumption of reality-basis, in this instance) capable of being produced at 2×10¹² Kelvin, which amounts to around 175 Mega-electronvolts (MeV) being its transition threshold (per particle). This would be achieved through the head-on collision of exceptionally heavy atoms (again, as detailed in the aforementioned Wikipedia article).

According to this article, insofar as density is concerned, that would likely depend on the given regime one is trying to create, but as stated in the APS article, "the temperature and density required to create one are less well determined. The best estimates are that the quark gluon plasma may appear at temperatures around 2 trillion degrees centigrade, which may be produced by smashing heavy nuclei like lead together at high energies."

Take that as you will, given the nature of this fictional world our entities exist in. Further, given that just a brief discussion on energy production methods in Legion produces a myriad of different methods of power generation (and, as necessary, the various sources of fuel utilized to produce such); in effect, in a reality where antimatter production has reached post-industrial levels, where hydrogen skimming of HII regions is the norm, where starlifting for coronal mass is a viable "New Oil Addiction", and where n-matter is a thing of abundance, the idea of producing QGP in viable quantities (for whatever purpose) is likely not beyond the realm of considerable possibility - assuming it's not exceptionally absurd and is either a) done in a creative and unique manner, or b) seems relatively feasible within the setting.

---

To Vorkova

I was thinking about using lasers as my main weapon in FT, and plasma as artillery/flame-throwers.

Sound good so far?

There is a common... "oversight" or "misstep" made by some in FT (and in science-fiction in general) that, after a certain point in the future, tried-and-true methods of death and destruction (among other things) stop being effective or feasible. It's a minor pet peeve. That being said, as an anti-personnel weapon, a "flamethrower" still works; while I would not advise its use within the (likely) cramped and (again likely) notably oxygenated artificial atmospheres of your vessels (Though I hope you have not made the mistake to presume that an atmosphere of 99% O2 is a good idea; hint: it isn't - for a number of reasons.), in terrestrial or ground-based combat, it has uses - though, much like flamethrowers in reality, they are limited.

As for plasma: define "plasma". I am going to assume, despite its use in common science-fiction for anything blue/green/yellow/red, sparking with electricity, and conveying death en masse, that you mean a given volume of matter that is ionized in a gaseous-state (Or a super-low viscosity liquid; thank you, quantum chromodynamics.). If such is the case, then the above advice about not using it within a vessel remains - but for different reasons, most of which can be inferred given shooting ionized matter inside a likely metal/loid vessel filled with sensitive electronics, conductive materials, and various other things that do not react well when bathed in purple-hot death. Further, however, even for exceptionally high-energy plasma emissions (such as coronal mass ejections), diffusion is a problem for ionized matter in space. Yes, firing the equivalent of a fusion-driven, mini-CME would be effective for ship-to-ship combat, it would only be as effective as the amount of power pushed behind it and the amount of given mass ejected - though, in the case of CME's, solar flares, and other related phenomena, the effects of magnetically-generated plasma pinching are present. Which brings me to...

Self-pinching plasma filaments are a thing; lightning bolts, for example, are self-pinching plasma filaments. You should research them, but understand that for anything to be even remotely useful, it is a) likely to be no less than... tens of hundreds of amps just to generate a plasma-channel in order to contain the filament itself - assuming it is within an atmosphere (Keeping in mind that the energy that will be transferred through this absurdly-charged filament will dwarf the initial amounts of amps required to generate it; you try firing a lightning bolt from a hand-held device.); b) assuming it's within space, the problems aren't alleviated significantly (at least not to be cost effective and more efficient than, say, missiles or even a Casaba howitzer strapped to a missile), and - even then - would need be discharged in the equivalent of megatons in order to even compete with the destructive force exuded by "conventional" (by comparison) rocket propelled-nuclear-death-tubes.

All-in-all, in general, I always advise against the use of "plasma-anything". Even in an atmosphere, if one utilized a self-pinching filament, accuracy is going out the window, and if one does not use a self-pinching filament, plasma is simply too diffuse in respect of the density of an atmosphere to be anything more than a briefly-lived blob of bright colors and electromagnetism.

If you're wanting the effects of plasma, minus the problems, you might consider physically-contained plasma shells - but that's just sort of silly in the end. Why is it silly? Because in the volume you've put this relatively diffused plasma (even compressed), you could have crammed high-explosives, miniature atomic weapons, or any other number of exotic "boom-sounding, death-spraying explosives" that can be devised within the realm of science-fiction.

Addendum: Note that, insofar as plasma, this is why charged particle beams are acceptable within an atmosphere in FT, but hilariously ineffective outside of an atmosphere, with neutral (non-electrically charged) particle beams (of various forms) being preferred for exo-atmospheric combat.

[Vorkova]

There is a common... "oversight" or "misstep" made by some in FT (and in science-fiction in general) that, after a certain point in the future, tried-and-true methods of death and destruction (among other things) stop being effective or feasible. It's a minor pet peeve. That being said, as an anti-personnel weapon, a "flamethrower" still works; while I would not advise it's use within the (likely) cramped and (again likely) notably oxygenated artificial atmospheres of your vessels (Though I hope you have not made the mistake to presume that an atmosphere of 99% O2 is a good idea; hint: it isn't - for a number of reasons.), in terrestrial or ground-based combat, it has uses - though, much like flamethrowers in reality, they are limited.

I recognise that lasers aren't necessarily better than other weapons, such as railguns, ect. I picked them simply because I think they're cool and my sci-fi is partially inspired by Star Wars. As for using plasma weapons as flamethrowers, I was thinking in the context of ground warfare only. Handheld plasma-throwers to clear out bunkers, plasma tanks to stop mass infantry charges and the like.

As for plasma: define "plasma". I am going to assume, despite its use in common science-fiction for anything blue/green/yellow/red, sparking with electricity, and conveying death en masse, that you mean a given volume of matter that is ionized in a gaseous-state (Or a super-low viscosity liquid; thank you, quantum chromodynamics.). If such is the case, then the above advice about not using it within a vessel remains - but for different reasons, most of which can be inferred given shooting ionized matter inside a likely metal/loid vessel filled with sensitive electronics, conductive materials, and various other things that do not react well when bathed in purple-hot death. Further, however, even for exceptionally high-energy plasma emissions (such as coronal mass ejections), diffusion is a problem for ionized matter in space. Yes, firing the equivalent of a fusion-driven, mini-CME would be effective for ship-to-ship combat, it would only be as effective as the amount of power pushed behind it and the amount of given mass ejected - though, in the case of CME's, solar flares, and other related phenomena, the effects of magnetically-generated plasma pinching are present. Which brings me to...

Self-pinching plasma filaments are a thing; lightning bolts, for example, are self-pinching plasma filaments. You should research them, but understand that for anything to be even remotely useful, it is a) likely to be no less than... tens of hundreds of amps just to generate a plasma-channel in order to contain the filament itself - assuming it is within an atmosphere (Keeping in mind that the energy that will be transferred through this absurdly-charged filament will dwarf the initial amounts of amps required to generate it; you try firing a lightning bolt from a hand-held device.); b) assuming it's within space, the problems aren't alleviated significantly (at least not to be cost effective and more efficient than, say, missiles or even a Casaba howitzer strapped to a missile), and - even then - would need be discharged in the equivalent of megatons in order to even compete with the destructive force exuded by "conventional" (by comparison) rocket propelled-nuclear-death-tubes.

All-in-all, in general, I always advise against the use of "plasma-anything". Even in an atmosphere, if one utilized a self-pinching filament, accuracy is going out the window, and if one does not use a self-pinching filament, plasma is simply too diffuse in respect of the density of an atmosphere to be anything more than a briefly-lived blob of bright colors and electromagnetism.

If you're wanting the effects of plasma, minus the problems, you might consider physically-contained plasma shells - but that's just sort of silly in the end. Why is it silly? Because in the volume you've put this relatively diffused plasma (even compressed), you could have crammed high-explosives, miniature atomic weapons, or any other number of exotic "boom-sounding, death-spraying explosives" that can be devised within the realm of science-fiction.

You make some good points. I was originally going to use plasma weapons as artillery because lasers obviously can't fire over the horizon. If that's out of the question, what would you suggest I use instead (Aside from missiles, I already use them as artillery)? I did think of a regular rail/gauss cannon, but they don't really fit into the energy weapons theme I want to use for my armed forces.

[Kyrusia]

[snipped]

Go back to what I said early: "There is a common... 'oversight' or 'misstep' made by some in FT (and in science-fiction in general) that, after a certain point in the future, tried-and-true methods of death and destruction (among other things) stop being effective or feasible." (Please don't construe this to be patronizing; it's just valid, insofar as I am concerned.)

Missiles, reaction-mass artillery, even orbital artillery. These are effective pretty much regardless of the unique environmental and atmospheric conditions of a given terrestrial. People, when they first get into FT, tend to underestimate the advancement a species is capable of making insofar as the technology they utilize in order to kill themselves and others. That being said, there is nothing that stops a missile from being effective or capable of OTH precision-at-range in FT; nothing stops an artillery shell with reaction mass for course correction or extended range (electromagnetically-assisted or otherwise) from being effective in FT; even if they are, assuming one is capable of interplanetary flight (pretty much required), calling in the big guns is always an option.

Though I am not one to prefer its use outside of the perceptions of weapons-of-mass destruction, a few micrograms of antimatter shoved into the warhead(s) of a missile are quite effective; exceptionally high-yield nuclear warheads are, just as well, effective; even "science-fiction advanced, exotic high explosives" would be effective. It's all just a matter of what you prefer insofar as aesthetic and the given doctrine of your military forces. All of that taken into account, any one of these options are more effective than a sprinkling of plasma-blobs; further (especially in the case of orbital artillery), they do not take into account the possibility of even more exotic methods of contrived catastrophe.

Take, for example, the equivalent of a "railway gun" firing "dumb" shells with neutronium warheads. Yes, the recoil would be absurd and would likely kill anyone and anything in the vicinity of the artillery piece simply by firing, but the amount of kinetic energy accumulated from firing even a small amount of such a hyper-dense material would likely be equitable to thermonuclear detonation (if not on the scale of the impact of an astronomical body, such as an asteroid). Even so, such is a possibility if one executes it well and adheres to the staples of collaboration, cooperation, and compromise. A lot of FT - even in the technology (and especially in the weaponry) - is a matter of working with your roleplaying cohorts and deciding on what is best for the given situation.

Remember: Future Tech is not (necessarily) about winning, it is about the story. You shouldn't seek, from an Out-of-Character perspective, to "defeat" the players you work with; yes, In-Character one would presume your forces seek to decimate their enemies, but this should not be the mindset one operates with Out-of-Character. There are some exceptions, of course, especially if one is working with close friends, but one should - at least in my opinion - always go into a roleplay with the presupposition that you are there to enjoy yourself and write a collaborative piece of fiction that not only you would enjoy reading and creation, but that others would enjoy reading and creating.

Addendum: Seeing your edit and realizing you're going for energy-driven weaponry, I would advise some means of charged/neutral particle beams, varying depending on situation and environment (endo- and exo-atmospheric, etc.); there is a literal cornucopia of information regarding these that can be found online - even outside of Atomic Rockets, though that might be a good place to start insofar as one remembers the aforementioned key to FT being collaboration, cooperation, and compromise. After all, FT is neither "hard" nor "soft"; there is a spectrum within the players of the community. One player might use high explosive shells, another may use CPB, another may crush you from orbit with gravitic weaponry. Keep this in mind.

[Jovian Lunar Empire]

Fun with the Longevity Project, or, Where're the Girls?

So, someone, presumably overly fascinated with the appropriate distribution of squidly bits, recently commented that it was unusual I'd done (essentially) two colony threads already, with nary a mention of a female Jovian between them. Indeed, so far the only feminine character I have is the prime operand, and as an AI, she hardly counts.

So, why are there no girls on the longevity missions? Because trinary gender systems make crewing concerns for such things exponentially more difficult. The Jovian Gender Trinary system uses a sort of a reprint of earth's sexual reproduction - spermatozoa encounters ovum, de-orbits, and achieves entry with a prejudice normally only reserved for things best not discussed in graphic detail. Then the female party excretes the ovum into the "natal cavity" of the third-gender, which provides for all the rest of the placental development of the offspring.

So, why did we only bring two-thirds of the puzzle? Because ovum deep-freeze a bit better than spermatozoa. At least part of the longevity mission cargo quota is taken up by frozen eggs. In the Second Wave Longevity Ships, it's frozen embryos, and what you have instead are vessels crewed entirely by Neutrals, to provide a faster "start up" of the new population, if you like. Over Very Long timescales, this'll probably lead to some nonsense about the Neutrals being directly chosen by gods, or gods themselves, or some similar nonsense. Or a strong education system might prevent that.

---

Laser Weapons, or, Buck Rodgers on Io.

So it should be noted that the "heaviest" world in the Jovian Lunar Empire clocks in at a piddly eighth of a g. In addition to pretty much making everything that lives there far too squishy for terrestrial planet exploration (at least unaided), it also means that delta-V to achieve orbit, or even escape, is super cheap. So cheap that on Amalthea, the force imparted upon a person by even a descent-sized slughthrower is either going to put you to escape, or at the very least throw you several kilometers away.

In either case that's not really good for combat. Double-true on the non-accelerated parts of Jovian ships, where you're operating in freefall conditions the vast majority of your tour. And so, a reactionless weapon - the laser, is needed.

Now, before you start, yes, I know that Lasers aren't truly recoilless, but on the macro scale they are good enough for our purposes. This leads, however, to an ancient problem of the space opera set designer: what does a laser weapon look like when it fires, and what's the effect on the target? For those of us into the harder Science Fiction, you also want to know How In The Worlds this thing is powered.

Let's start with the obvious. Forget what you've seen on television - you can't watch the "pulse" of a laser weapon travel, and you probably aren't going to see the beam - for one thing, if you're firing in or near vaccuum, there's nothing to scatter it back to your eyes, and for another thing, you're probably not firing in the visible light spectrum anyway. There would be a bit of a flash when you strike your target, possibly strobbing at an imperceptibly high rate, and a loud bang from the point of impact, given the fact that a laser weapon would work by essentially boiling to vapor point whatever working fluid is in the cells of your organic target, or else otherwise breaking apart matter once it got there. This leads to a curious effect whereby the weapon's report likely leads you to the target rather than the shooter. The fact you're not firing in the baseline-visible spectrum also means nobody's walking your beam back to you.

So, power. Lasers take a lot of power - to impart a lethal effect on a humanoid, human-mass target with an appreciable amount of protection you're talking about 6kj or so per shot. Fortunately, it's not that hard to assume a bullet-sized capacitor at 2.5kj per cubic centimetre energy density - which isn't actually high at all. A Zinc-Air Battery has a higher energy density by my calculations. So what you have is a bank of these capacitors, say in a magazine or a revolver-style drum, that you can exchange efficiently once depleted. Dock into your charging station at the end of your duty cycle to reload.

This all, of course, being the roundabout way of defending the idea of the laser pistol.

[Vorkova]

[snipped]

Go back to what I said early: "There is a common... 'oversight' or 'misstep' made by some in FT (and in science-fiction in general) that, after a certain point in the future, tried-and-true methods of death and destruction (among other things) stop being effective or feasible." (Please don't construe this to be patronizing; it's just valid, insofar as I am concerned.)

Missiles, reaction-mass artillery, even orbital artillery. These are effective pretty much regardless of the unique environmental and atmospheric conditions of a given terrestrial. People, when they first get into FT, tend to underestimate the advancement a species is capable of making insofar as the technology they utilize in order to kill themselves and others. That being said, there is nothing that stops a missile from being effective or capable of OTH precision-at-range in FT; nothing stops an artillery shell with reaction mass for course correction or extended range (electromagnetically-assisted or otherwise) from being effective in FT; even if they are, assuming one is capable of interplanetary flight (pretty much required), calling in the big guns is always an option.

Though I am not one to prefer its use outside of the perceptions of weapons-of-mass destruction, a few micrograms of antimatter shoved into the warhead(s) of a missile are quite effective; exceptionally high-yield nuclear warheads are, just as well, effective; even "science-fiction advanced, exotic high explosives" would be effective. It's all just a matter of what you prefer insofar as aesthetic and the given doctrine of your military forces. All of that taken into account, any one of these options are more effective than a sprinkling of plasma-blobs; further (especially in the case of orbital artillery), they do not take into account the possibility of even more exotic methods of contrived catastrophe.

Take, for example, the equivalent of a "railway gun" firing "dumb" shells with neutronium warheads. Yes, the recoil would be absurd and would likely kill anyone and anything in the vicinity of the artillery piece simply by firing, but the amount of kinetic energy accumulated from firing even a small amount of such a hyper-dense material would likely be equitable to thermonuclear detonation (if not on the scale of the impact of an astronomical body, such as an asteroid). Even so, such is a possibility if one executes it well and adheres to the staples of collaboration, cooperation, and compromise. A lot of FT - even in the technology (and especially in the weaponry) - is a matter of working with your roleplaying cohorts and deciding on what is best for the given situation.

Remember: Future Tech is not (necessarily) about winning, it is about the story. You shouldn't seek, from an Out-of-Character perspective, to "defeat" the players you work with; yes, In-Character one would presume your forces seek to decimate their enemies, but this should not be the mindset one operates with Out-of-Character. There are some exceptions, of course, especially if one is working with close friends, but one should - at least in my opinion - always go into a roleplay with the presupposition that you are there to enjoy yourself and write a collaborative piece of fiction that not only you would enjoy reading and creation, but that others would enjoy reading and creating.

Addendum: Seeing your edit and realizing you're going for energy-driven weaponry, I would advise some means of charged/neutral particle beams, varying depending on situation and environment (endo- and exo-atmospheric, etc.); there is a literal cornucopia of information regarding these that can be found online - even outside of Atomic Rockets, though that might be a good place to start insofar as one remembers the aforementioned key to FT being collaboration, cooperation, and compromise.

I've not RPed properly for so long that I've forgotten what it's like to actually co-operate and compromise with people. What you are saying is true though, and I've taken it on-board completely. I'll tailor my military and the weapons it uses around the RP and the story. I originally thought missiles would be a bad idea for a FT artillery weapon because point defences would probably be so advanced by then that they could be shot down, but I see that was a bad idea now. A good RPer would take losses regardless of the weapon type, which is what I had forgotten in my mad rush to develop a hyper advanced military.

[SquareDisc City]

You make some good points. I was originally going to use plasma weapons as artillery because lasers obviously can't fire over the horizon. If that's out of the question, what would you suggest I use instead (Aside from missiles, I already use them as artillery)? I did think of a regular rail/gauss cannon, but they don't really fit into the energy weapons theme I want to use for my armed forces.

This is a problem I encountered when it came to the UPT (marine) Navy. One approach I used is to have the energy weapon on a tall mast. 50 metres up, the horizon is 25 kilometres away. Though it does have downsides, this approach makes sense for the UPT Navy, which doesn't have much funding and largely has to adapt Space Force equipment for its use rather than having custom weapon systems. This approach might be less helpful on land though, where enemies could be in cover of terrain.

Or you could just use a plain old explosive shell, whether chemical, nuclear, or something more exotic, fired from either an electromagnetic or a conventional gun.

An "in-between" option is a shell equipped with a laser (or other beam weapon) warhead. The shell's fired up into the air, and when it gets within sight of the target it discharges the laser beam. Such warheads mounted on missiles are popular for space combat, I see no reason it couldn't work on the ground.

If you aren't bothered about physical unrealism, you're free to have glowing energy bolts that follow a curved path.

Finally, you can of course abandon the idea of ground units having indirect fire capability at all. If you envision the only effective and cost-effective weapons being lasers, particle beams, or high-speed railguns then this would be quite natural. Your nation's military could then employ air or space support to fill the gap. Indeed the availability of precision orbital strikes might be the IC reason ground units don't bother with indirect fire.

[Kyrusia]

[snipped]

Well, to be frank, your concerns and considerations aren't unfounded. PD and interdiction systems (terminal or otherwise) would, conceivably, be more advanced, reliable, and precise in their given roles than in the present; that being said, that does not mean missiles haven't become more advanced in their roles. To take a bit from the missile boats/giant-modular-torpedo-things in spacial combat, there's nothing (necessarily) prohibiting a surface-to-surface missile from having its own countermeasures against some forms of interdiction and point-defense - or any number of logistical or support systems catered specifically to assist in defeating such interdictive defensive measures. Then again, as you point out: it's about compromise and cooperation (and consistency; see below).

Though, I feel I should clarify about the "catering for each RP thing": consistency is something prized in FT, in part because amongst newer players it is rare. If you develop a given weapon system that has a given set of weaknesses and strengths, these should not change considerably between threads or roleplaying ventures (without adequate and accepted time for research, logistical improvements, and technological improvement of that system). If Laser A is stopped by Shield Z in one thread, Laser A should not suddenly be able to penetrate Shield Z in another thread. You have to balance consistency of your aesthetics and the internal rules of your technology's physics against the willingness to permit losses and generally compromise.

That and always remember: you're constantly in a state of education and autodidacticism.

[Vorkova]

This is a problem I encountered when it came to the UPT (marine) Navy. One approach I used is to have the energy weapon on a tall mast. 50 metres up, the horizon is 25 kilometres away.

I remember the Goa'uld using something similar in an episode of Stargate: SG-1. Their weapons are basically fancy plasma cannons, so it makes perfect sense for then. Wouldn't such a weapon be very vulnerable though?

An "in-between" option is a shell equipped with a laser (or other beam weapon) warhead. The shell's fired up into the air, and when it gets within sight of the target it discharges the laser beam. Such warheads mounted on missiles are popular for space combat, I see no reason it couldn't work on the ground.

A host of those weapons was used against one of my star destroyer fleets about two years ago when I was RPing on my original nation. They're a practical solution, but I don't really like them as weapons.

Finally, you can of course abandon the idea of ground units having indirect fire capability at all. If you envision the only effective and cost-effective weapons being lasers, particle beams, or high-speed railguns then this would be quite natural. Your nation's military could then employ air or space support to fill the gap. Indeed the availability of precision orbital strikes might be the IC reason ground units don't bother with indirect fire.

Mobile missile batteries, aircraft, and orbital bombardment could work. There's nothing more glorious than watching a battleship glass an enemy division from orbit.

[Vorkova]

Well, to be frank, your concerns and considerations aren't unfounded. PD and interdiction systems (terminal or otherwise) would, conceivably, be more advanced, reliable, and precise in their given roles than in the present; that being said, that does not mean missiles haven't become more advanced in their roles. To take a bit from the missile boats/giant-modular-torpedo-things in spacial combat, there's nothing (necessarily) prohibiting a surface-to-surface missile from having its own countermeasures against some forms of interdiction and point-defense - or any number of logistical or support systems catered specifically to assist in defeating such interdictive defensive measures. Then again, as you point out: it's about compromise and cooperation (and consistency; see below).

Missile interceptors could actually provide for some good writing material. I remember a RPer describing in detail his point defense guns attempt to shoot down some of my anti-ship missiles. I only let a few get through in the end, and they didn't do too much damage, but losing so many may the combat seem... gritty and realistic, which is what I like in a war RP.

Though, I feel I should clarify about the "catering for each RP thing": consistency is something prized in FT, in part because amongst newer players it is rare. If you develop a given weapon system that has a given set of weaknesses and strengths, these should not change considerably between threads or roleplaying ventures (without adequate and accepted time for research, logistical improvements, and technological improvement of that system). If Laser A is stopped by Shield Z in one thread, Laser A should not suddenly be able to penetrate Shield Z in another thread. You have to balance consistency of your aesthetics and the internal rules of your technology's physics against the willingness to permit losses and generally compromise.

I didn't really think about consistency before, which is probably why I got bored of FT so quick. I kept changing around my weapons to suit RPs, with lasers being effective in one, but then not in the next, leading me to switch to rail cannons, and so on. Constantly changing my nation ripped the heart out of it, because although a certain amount of compromise regarding technology was needed, I went much too far, meaning it wasn't my creation any more.

[New Tauri Republic]

kernil on my mckendree cylinders.
They are mobile in the sense that they are capable of ftl travel.. Sublight travel inside a system would take months to accomplish, unless it uses its considerable weight to "orbit" a star like a planet, amd sling shots around it. It is immensely slow. Its shields, due to the shear size of the dang thing, are relatively weak ( they are sectional sheilds, but each section is really weak); it depends mostly on armour.

Further offsetting this is that it CANNOT fire its weapons or its albielt powerful reaction engines with the shields online. The weapons and shields are mostly to buy time to activate the ftl drive, which takes awhile to charge, given the massive energy requirements ( it has multiple reactor cores each capable of outputting 80 teratons of energy before refueling, in addition to massive numbers of secondary reactors each rating more than a megatons of energy each).
They are there so it can escape a contested star system, using the massiveness of space as its primary means of defense, in addition to a small defense fleet. The only way it could ram some body is if they get in the way, and the weapons are more of point defenses, and due to lack if massive heatsinks, the weapons can only be fired a couple of times each.

All the rest of the energy is going to the ftl drive, and heating up the hull would kill everyone on board. Inbetween jumps it MUST cool off before the next jump, amd that also takes awhile. There is a reason it has its own defense fleet, albiet a somewhat small one. There there to shoot the people who attack, and if necessary buy time for the escape of everyone else. Yes tossing asteroids at it might be somewhat pointless due to the defenses, but they inaccurate against anything but asteroids (even ones traveling at relativistic speeds). If you happen to place your ship directly in front of the weapons platforms ( which also serve to deter attacks, making it APPEAR like it could destroy entire fleets with ease.

The reactionless drive is only there to manuever into into a slingshot orbit, and as a slight boost through the ftl drive field once it is generated.


Would this make it acceptable?

[Ularn]

After an absence lasting over five months, a journey of over 6,000 miles, and at least a few hours of seriously considering a lifetime as a Buddhist monk, I have reached what is more or less the exact opposite side of the planet Sol III/Terra/Earth from which I began my journey, and re established reliable internet connectivity. Miss me? Even notice I was away? Whatever. What're we talking about?

[Jovian Lunar Empire]

After an absence lasting over five months, a journey of over 6,000 miles, and at least a few hours of seriously considering a lifetime as a Buddhist monk, I have reached what is more or less the exact opposite side of the planet Sol III/Terra/Earth from which I began my journey, and re established reliable internet connectivity. Miss me? Even notice I was away? Whatever. What're we talking about?

I for one did.

Mostly? Impossibly large FTL-capable constructs and the usual lazor vs missile argument.

[House of Thindrel]

I am new to the FT Community of NS. So if this is a dumb question, excuse my ignorance. How feasible are terra-forming machines that could make a world more conducive for life to develop?

[SquareDisc City]

Terraforming in general is common and I feel reasonable. Quick terraforming may be another matter though. ICly my nation opposes terraforming, so it's not something I've looked at much OOC.

[New Tsavon]

After an absence lasting over five months, a journey of over 6,000 miles, and at least a few hours of seriously considering a lifetime as a Buddhist monk, I have reached what is more or less the exact opposite side of the planet Sol III/Terra/Earth from which I began my journey, and re established reliable internet connectivity. Miss me? Even notice I was away? Whatever. What're we talking about?

Welcome back.

As for the subject, I'm not entirely sure.

[The Fedral Union]

I am new to the FT Community of NS. So if this is a dumb question, excuse my ignorance. How feasible are terra-forming machines that could make a world more conducive for life to develop?

Depends. Honestly Terra-forming is fine, but it shouldn't be instant or uber quick. Depending on your flavor of tech, but it takes time.. Yes any type of tech short of "Genesis device" level stuff will take time. But honestly since NS is fluid time mostly, but threads that you are in are usually frozen or slowly moving during a set time period in your history. That's in my case any way, unless people accept things "established in the past" by new threads. But I'm getting off track.


Terraforming depends on the type of planet your trying to make habitable, there are all sorts of factors. For example you are not going to be able to terraform a lifeless rock like Luna in to a green planet like you could theoretically do with mars. You'd need mastery of genetics for plant life and organisms, environmental conditioning tech (to melt ice and such) , and proper sunlight so it has to be within the golden zone.

[Jovian Lunar Empire]

I am new to the FT Community of NS. So if this is a dumb question, excuse my ignorance. How feasible are terra-forming machines that could make a world more conducive for life to develop?

Perfectly feasible - whether it's economically viable depends on your tech level, essentially, as well as a host of other factors. Generally speaking you're going to want to start with a biosphere not dissimilar from your homeworld baseline.

Technologically? The technology exists now - getting it to the other worlds cheaply enough to make it worthwhile is the tricky bit.

[The Fedral Union]

I am new to the FT Community of NS. So if this is a dumb question, excuse my ignorance. How feasible are terra-forming machines that could make a world more conducive for life to develop?

Perfectly feasible - whether it's economically viable depends on your tech level, essentially, as well as a host of other factors. Generally speaking you're going to want to start with a biosphere not dissimilar from your homeworld baseline.

Technologically? The technology exists now - getting it to the other worlds cheaply enough to make it worthwhile is the tricky bit.

Yes but currently and I think in the near to mid Future wouldn't it take a century or two and a half centuries for the terraforming of a planet to be done?

[Jovian Lunar Empire]

Perfectly feasible - whether it's economically viable depends on your tech level, essentially, as well as a host of other factors. Generally speaking you're going to want to start with a biosphere not dissimilar from your homeworld baseline.

Technologically? The technology exists now - getting it to the other worlds cheaply enough to make it worthwhile is the tricky bit.

Yes but currently and I think in the near to mid Future wouldn't it take a century or two and a half centuries for the terraforming of a planet to be done?

That depends, chiefly, on how large you want your initial investment to be. Your largest estimate is a lot lower than I might have guessed.

[New Tauri Republic]

kernil on my mckendree cylinders.

They are mobile in the sense that they are capable of ftl travel.. Sublight travel inside a system would take months to accomplish, unless it uses its considerable weight to "orbit" a star like a planet, amd sling shots around it.

It is immensely slow. Its shields, due to the shear size of the dang thing, are relatively weak ( they are sectional sheilds, but each section is really weak); it depends mostly on armour.

Further offsetting this is that it CANNOT fire its weapons or its albielt powerful reaction engines with the shields online. The weapons and shields are mostly to buy time to activate the ftl drive, which takes awhile to charge, given the massive energy requirements ( it has multiple reactor cores each capable of outputting 80 teratons of energy before refueling, in addition to massive numbers of secondary reactors each rating more than a megatons of energy each).

They are there so it can escape a contested star system, using the massiveness of space as its primary means of defense, in addition to a small defense fleet. The only way it could ram some body is if they get in the way, and the weapons are more of point defenses, and due to lack if massive heatsinks, the weapons can only be fired a couple of times each. All the rest of the energy is going to the ftl drive, and heating up the hull would kill everyone on board.

Inbetween jumps it MUST cool off before the next jump, and that also takes awhile (several months, plus several days to a couple weeks
of charging the ftl drive, which kept partially charged via a large superconducting ring at all times, so that after three months and can move to flee at a moments notice). There is a reason it has its own defense fleet, albiet a somewhat small one. There there to shoot the people who attack, and if necessary buy time for the escape of everyone else. Yes tossing asteroids at it might be somewhat pointless due to the defenses, but they inaccurate against anything but asteroids (even ones traveling at relativistic speeds). If you happen to place your ship directly in front of the weapons platforms ( which also serve to deter attacks, making it APPEAR like it could destroy entire fleets with ease.

The reactionless drive is only there to manuever into into a slingshot orbit, and as a slight boost through the ftl drive field once it is generated.

Would this make it acceptable?

Would all of these drawbacks make it acceptable?
And wouldn't ftl drives be somewhat large anyways? With the amount of space on such a large mostly defenseless vessel, it should not be that hard to fit one on it.

[Tribea]

Considering the huge amounts of heat plasma must have, would it fry the target's insides if it hit them at high speeds?

[The Fedral Union]

Considering the huge amounts of heat plasma must have, would it fry the target's insides if it hit them at high speeds?

Heat is just an after effect, it would have KE like a particle beam.

[Ularn]

Yes but currently and I think in the near to mid Future wouldn't it take a century or two and a half centuries for the terraforming of a planet to be done?

That depends, chiefly, on how large you want your initial investment to be. Your largest estimate is a lot lower than I might have guessed.

I've got two major terraforming projects running in the UIF. One is an otherwise habitable world but for the ungodly amount of ash and nuclear fallout choking the atmosphere since the local species' equivalent of the Cold War not only heated up, but went full retard roughly a century ago. Getting the atmosphere clean enough to wander around in without an enviro suit's expected to take about five years. Getting it as clean as Earth's is now will take about two decades.

The other one involves getting an ice planet similar to Ganymede cleaned and heated up to the point it can sustain life. Five hundred years of working on it, and it is just about possible for some of the hardier races to walk about on the surface unassisted as long as they keep a parka and a respirator handy. Part of the delay's been due to the fact that, after pumping in the first atmosphere for the planet, the terra formers started melting the ice layer, only to discover, "Hey, there's oceans of chlorine underneath all this ice, and we just vaporized it into our nice new atmosphere!" which led to the whole thing needing scrubbed clean all over again.In short, it's been a half-millennia long clusterfuck, and no-one who was there at the beginning would have okay end the plan if they knew how it would turn out (or not). Unfortunately, so much time, effort and money's been invested in the project that abandoning it now would be politically untenable.

Like most aspects of FT, terraforming is most fun/interesting when you make it really hard.

[Oppressorion]

This is a problem I encountered when it came to the UPT (marine) Navy. One approach I used is to have the energy weapon on a tall mast. 50 metres up, the horizon is 25 kilometres away. Though it does have downsides, this approach makes sense for the UPT Navy, which doesn't have much funding and largely has to adapt Space Force equipment for its use rather than having custom weapon systems.

That sounds like would make the ship much less stable, depending on how much mass you're putting up there (disregarding the obvious Rule of Cool of masts on warships again). Could you could put the weapon at the base of the mast, and then install a reflector at the top? Granted it'll need a cooling system but so would the weapon.

[Tribea]

Considering the huge amounts of heat plasma must have, would it fry the target's insides if it hit them at high speeds?

Heat is just an after effect, it would have KE like a particle beam.

The heat keeps it from slowing down and becoming a gas.