NationStates Post-Modern Tech Community Thread

[Thoricia]

Make it a mortar round that's effective against light armor, that small though you're gonna need some serious punch to penetrate anyone's PMT MBT's armor and I don't know how well received it would be having missile launchers than can kill multiple tanks in one shot by other players. Something like the JAVELIN missile launcher accomplishes the same thing though, however it's a one shot one kill system but it does do the top down attack as well and is intended to be used against tanks so you may consider something like that if your looking for a portable tank killer

Would it be possible to downscale the caliber of the munition, seeing as most of the current day SADARM munitions has a caliber of around 152mm. Maybe doing a 120mm SADARM to increase the mobility of the mortar. Or making a launch platform light enough to be carried by infantry.

I don't see why you couldn't scale it down to even 80mm or 90mm but that it is going to have an effect on how much punch they have hence why I said effective against light armor but probably not MBTs

[The Macabees]

The SR-71 aren't turboro-ramjets, that refers to specific engine (sometimes called an air turborocket) which uses a gas generator to drive a turbine mounted forward of a ramjet combustor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_J58

"It had a unique bleed from the compressor to the afterburner which gave increased thrust at high speeds. This feature caused it to be referred to as a turboramjet in some writings."

The Lu-27 Condor write-up otherwise doesn't go into the SR-71 at all. There's just a mention of turboramjet and SR-71.

Edit: The materials used are, honestly, inconsequential and value-less technobabble. Fwiw, they're from a reference textbook on aircraft construction materials that had data on temperature resistance, et cetera.

[Thoricia]

The SR-71 aren't turboro-ramjets, that refers to specific engine (sometimes called an air turborocket) which uses a gas generator to drive a turbine mounted forward of a ramjet combustor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_J58

"It had a unique bleed from the compressor to the afterburner which gave increased thrust at high speeds. This feature caused it to be referred to as a turboramjet in some writings."

The Lu-27 Condor write-up otherwise doesn't go into the SR-71 at all. There's just a mention of turboramjet and SR-71.

Edit: The materials used are, honestly, inconsequential and value-less technobabble. Fwiw, they're from a reference textbook on aircraft construction materials that had data on temperature resistance, et cetera.

.

I honestly don't really use a lot of numbers as it is because I'm more focused on writing good and playing well with others, that's not to say numbers don't have their place mind you I just usually relegate their existence to factbooks when I can be assed to make them. Besides it's really hard to actually use hard data in a PMT setting so I generally take the attitude "How will others perceive this and does it fit well within the realm of compromise, collaboration, and consistency for my nation" something I am of the opinion of players should focus more on than crunching numbers

[Vistora]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_J58

"It had a unique bleed from the compressor to the afterburner which gave increased thrust at high speeds. This feature caused it to be referred to as a turboramjet in some writings."

The Lu-27 Condor write-up otherwise doesn't go into the SR-71 at all. There's just a mention of turboramjet and SR-71.

Edit: The materials used are, honestly, inconsequential and value-less technobabble. Fwiw, they're from a reference textbook on aircraft construction materials that had data on temperature resistance, et cetera.

.

I honestly don't really use a lot of numbers as it is because I'm more focused on writing good and playing well with others, that's not to say numbers don't have their place mind you I just usually relegate their existence to factbooks when I can be assed to make them. Besides it's really hard to actually use hard data in a PMT setting so I generally take the attitude "How will others perceive this and does it fit well within the realm of compromise, collaboration, and consistency for my nation" something I am of the opinion of players should focus more on than crunching numbers

For all my harping on about technically rigorous mid-high PMT, that is the fairest position to take tbh. It's ultimately the story that matters.

[Thoricia]

.

I honestly don't really use a lot of numbers as it is because I'm more focused on writing good and playing well with others, that's not to say numbers don't have their place mind you I just usually relegate their existence to factbooks when I can be assed to make them. Besides it's really hard to actually use hard data in a PMT setting so I generally take the attitude "How will others perceive this and does it fit well within the realm of compromise, collaboration, and consistency for my nation" something I am of the opinion of players should focus more on than crunching numbers

For all my harping on about technically rigorous mid-high PMT, that is the fairest position to take tbh. It's ultimately the story that matters.

To be more clear here I'm not saying don't use numbers or real data. I often reference actual existing technologies when I create something because it's somewhat of a yardstick for me personally because I don't want be a wanker. PMT is one of those unique settings that can have a broad range of definitions and what people are willing to interact with because there's just so much, one person might say railguns on tanks or power armor is acceptable and another might balk at that. It's every player's responsibility in these types of settings to communicate with one another and get a feel what each other is willing to work and how they can come together in the interest of everyone having fun and really writing a great story that's enjoyable by all parties

[The Macabees]

I read a lot of what can be called PMT sci-fi. Books like Arkwright, Aurora, and The Dark Forest explore a future that is relatively near to ours, at least when compared to the future that's often envisioned in space opera literature. And they all try to root their world in science. They are hard sci-fi books. But, there's always a technical detail (or several) that's wrong. But what makes these ideas interesting isn't necessarily how rooted in reality they are, although clearly the connection to hard science has value in it (otherwise it wouldn't be a factor at all), but what makes them interesting is the creativity behind them and their use.

[UniversalCommons]

Science Ficiton is a small portion of what alternate futures might look like. Reading Buckminster Fuller, Buzz Aldrin's book, Mission to Mars: My Vision For Space Exploration, Floating to Space The Airship to Orbit Program by John M. Powell, Jerry Pournelle's books on the strategy of technology, books like From Eco-Cities to Living Machines by John Todd and Nancy Jack Todd, even some of Jules Vernes lesser known works like A Floating City or H.G. Wells, The World Brain: The Idea of a Permanent World Encyclopedia. Even books like The Whole Earth Catalog and Worldchanging can give ideas on how the world might be different. Books like Makers: The Next Industrial Revolution by Chris Andersen, or Abundance The Future is Better than You Think by Peter H. Diamandis are readily available. The world is changing right now. Just following the news closely gives you plenty of options.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

I think you're confusing PMT with MT again.

PMT doesn't change the laws of thermodynamics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_J58

"It had a unique bleed from the compressor to the afterburner which gave increased thrust at high speeds. This feature caused it to be referred to as a turboramjet in some writings."

The Lu-27 Condor write-up otherwise doesn't go into the SR-71 at all. There's just a mention of turboramjet and SR-71.

Edit: The materials used are, honestly, inconsequential and value-less technobabble. Fwiw, they're from a reference textbook on aircraft construction materials that had data on temperature resistance, et cetera.

That ins't technically correct, though. The designers referred to it as a "bleed bypass" or "continuous bleed" engine. Anyways to go faster than mach 4 you need something more complex than a straight turbojet or tubroramjet. And for an interceptor why Mach 5+? How fast are these nuclear bombers?

Materials like carbon/epoxy, steel, aluminum, and titanium are what virtually all aircraft are made primarily off but as you go mach 4+ you need higher temperature materials like nickel superalloys, titanium MMCs, or refractories like TZM to handle the hypersonic heating.

I honestly don't really use a lot of numbers as it is because I'm more focused on writing good and playing well with others, that's not to say numbers don't have their place mind you I just usually relegate their existence to factbooks when I can be assed to make them. Besides it's really hard to actually use hard data in a PMT setting so I generally take the attitude "How will others perceive this and does it fit well within the realm of compromise, collaboration, and consistency for my nation" something I am of the opinion of players should focus more on than crunching numbers

The numbers still need to make sense and the reason behind them has to justified, IMO the more extreme the number the more serious technological (and logical) justification it needs. This is true for both PMT and MT.

[Thoricia]

-snip-

You don't know how our understanding of physics, thermodynamics, biology, or any other number of sciences will change or drastically increase over the course of the next fifty years or more, you could probably guess and maybe get close. You can't tell what technologies will or won't exist unless you have some sort of crystal ball (which I'd love to hear the explanation for the science behind that) You honestly can't tell me that people from the thirties or the forties had any sort of idea of the technology or the grasp of science we have today. The same goes when writing for PMT, we have an idea, a thought or an inclination about how things might work, but in all honesty nobody knows so instead we focus on writing a good story as well collaborating amongst ourselves. And if the lack of hard data is infuriating to you I'd say I'm sorry but I honestly don't care because I'm not here to crunch numbers and figure out every minute little detail, I'm more concerned with having a good time and others
enjoying it as well.

[Vistora]

I think you're confusing PMT with MT again.

PMT doesn't change the laws of thermodynamics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_J58

"It had a unique bleed from the compressor to the afterburner which gave increased thrust at high speeds. This feature caused it to be referred to as a turboramjet in some writings."

The Lu-27 Condor write-up otherwise doesn't go into the SR-71 at all. There's just a mention of turboramjet and SR-71.

Edit: The materials used are, honestly, inconsequential and value-less technobabble. Fwiw, they're from a reference textbook on aircraft construction materials that had data on temperature resistance, et cetera.

That ins't technically correct, though. The designers referred to it as a "bleed bypass" or "continuous bleed" engine. Anyways to go faster than mach 4 you need something more complex than a straight turbojet or tubroramjet. And for an interceptor why Mach 5+? How fast are these nuclear bombers?

Materials like carbon/epoxy, steel, aluminum, and titanium are what virtually all aircraft are made primarily off but as you go mach 4+ you need higher temperature materials like nickel superalloys, titanium MMCs, or refractories like TZM to handle the hypersonic heating.

I honestly don't really use a lot of numbers as it is because I'm more focused on writing good and playing well with others, that's not to say numbers don't have their place mind you I just usually relegate their existence to factbooks when I can be assed to make them. Besides it's really hard to actually use hard data in a PMT setting so I generally take the attitude "How will others perceive this and does it fit well within the realm of compromise, collaboration, and consistency for my nation" something I am of the opinion of players should focus more on than crunching numbers

The numbers still need to make sense and the reason behind them has to justified, IMO the more extreme the number the more serious technological (and logical) justification it needs. This is true for both PMT and MT.

At higher levels of PMT technological advancement, it becomes increasingly difficult to derive directly from that which has been conclusively developed and empirically tested, and thus more and more extrapolation is required and as a result extremely solid experimental data become scarcer, and reliance on theory becomes more and more pronounced. Low-PMT and MT+ can draw upon conclusive DARPA papers written about cutting-edge military technology, but across a time gap after which what is even cutting edge may become obsolete, your aforementioned serious technological justifications become much harder, perhaps even unfeasible, to produce.

Moreover, unless I have severely misinterpreted your statements, you claim that greater deviations from known reality a given technology or related element expresses ("the more extreme the number"), more must be done, paradoxically, to logically justify its in-universe existence ("the more serious technological [and logical] justification it needs"). I request you confirm or correct this interpretation before I make any erroneous conclusions based on it.

That being said...

-snip-

You don't know how our understanding of physics, thermodynamics, biology, or any other number of sciences will change or drastically increase over the course of the next fifty years or more, you could probably guess and maybe get close. You can't tell what technologies will or won't exist unless you have some sort of crystal ball (which I'd love to hear the explanation for the science behind that) You honestly can't tell me that people from the thirties or the forties had any sort of idea of the technology or the grasp of science we have today.

This excuses almost nothing. Disregarding for a moment how preposterously rigorous our modern physical theories are, past precedent for great paradigm shifts in scientific theory has never been nor ever will be grounds for concluding that any given theory will change. That simply defies the epistemology of science and rational understanding. We define our world according to the natural laws we empirically observe, construct our theoretical models from the observed rules, and henceforth employ them in lieu of a posteriori observation. While we cannot fully conclude the nature of reality on such a priori grounds, were we to give no credence to rule-based deduction everything we understand about the past, the future, and the far beyond would be void. While it's true that new theories could emerge to replace existing ones, the margins of error to which such fundamental physical theories such as thermodynamics have been confirmed are too minuscule to consider any upheaval within any conceivable span of time.

[Democratic Limbang]

Would it be possible to downscale the caliber of the munition, seeing as most of the current day SADARM munitions has a caliber of around 152mm. Maybe doing a 120mm SADARM to increase the mobility of the mortar. Or making a launch platform light enough to be carried by infantry.

I don't see why you couldn't scale it down to even 80mm or 90mm but that it is going to have an effect on how much punch they have hence why I said effective against light armor but probably not MBTs

If we say I've scaled it down to 100mm, how would a portable launch platform be effectively designed?

[Thoricia]

PMT doesn't change the laws of thermodynamics



That ins't technically correct, though. The designers referred to it as a "bleed bypass" or "continuous bleed" engine. Anyways to go faster than mach 4 you need something more complex than a straight turbojet or tubroramjet. And for an interceptor why Mach 5+? How fast are these nuclear bombers?

Materials like carbon/epoxy, steel, aluminum, and titanium are what virtually all aircraft are made primarily off but as you go mach 4+ you need higher temperature materials like nickel superalloys, titanium MMCs, or refractories like TZM to handle the hypersonic heating.



The numbers still need to make sense and the reason behind them has to justified, IMO the more extreme the number the more serious technological (and logical) justification it needs. This is true for both PMT and MT.

At higher levels of PMT technological advancement, it becomes increasingly difficult to derive directly from that which has been conclusively developed and empirically tested, and thus more and more extrapolation is required and as a result extremely solid experimental data become scarcer, and reliance on theory becomes more and more pronounced. Low-PMT and MT+ can draw upon conclusive DARPA papers written about cutting-edge military technology, but across a time gap after which what is even cutting edge may become obsolete, your aforementioned serious technological justifications become much harder, perhaps even unfeasible, to produce.

Moreover, unless I have severely misinterpreted your statements, you claim that greater deviations from known reality a given technology or related element expresses ("the more extreme the number"), more must be done, paradoxically, to logically justify its in-universe existence ("the more serious technological [and logical] justification it needs"). I request you confirm or correct this interpretation before I make any erroneous conclusions based on it.

That being said...

You don't know how our understanding of physics, thermodynamics, biology, or any other number of sciences will change or drastically increase over the course of the next fifty years or more, you could probably guess and maybe get close. You can't tell what technologies will or won't exist unless you have some sort of crystal ball (which I'd love to hear the explanation for the science behind that) You honestly can't tell me that people from the thirties or the forties had any sort of idea of the technology or the grasp of science we have today.

This excuses almost nothing. Disregarding for a moment how preposterously rigorous our modern physical theories are, past precedent for great paradigm shifts in scientific theory has never been nor ever will be grounds for concluding that any given theory will change. That simply defies the epistemology of science and rational understanding. We define our world according to the natural laws we empirically observe, construct our theoretical models from the observed rules, and henceforth employ them in lieu of a posteriori observation. While we cannot fully conclude the nature of reality on such a priori grounds, were we to give no credence to rule-based deduction everything we understand about the past, the future, and the far beyond would be void. While it's true that new theories could emerge to replace existing ones, the margins of error to which such fundamental physical theories such as thermodynamics have been confirmed are too minuscule to consider any upheaval within any conceivable span of time.

. Can you tell me what the temperature threshold would be for a new aircraft skin constructed at the molecular level using nanotechnology that's composed of aluminum and ceramic coated in material an organic polymer composite similar to Starlite?

Cause I really couldn't and I think it a great fallacy to expect people to be experts in multiple science disciplines in order to write a story, I don't expect the person I'm writing a story with to be well versed in physics, chemistry, metallurgy and any other number of things required. What I do expect is them to be a fair player that is willing to compromise with me in the effort to write a collaborative story. And I don't that's unreasonable to expect.

[Thoricia]

I don't see why you couldn't scale it down to even 80mm or 90mm but that it is going to have an effect on how much punch they have hence why I said effective against light armor but probably not MBTs

If we say I've scaled it down to 100mm, how would a portable launch platform be effectively designed?

Working on a lot of theory here and using existing systems as a comparison. First thing we would obviously need for it to be is light in order for it to portable by infantry and unless you have a small robot or wheeled drone traveling with your infantry it'll need to be able to be broken down into components. You'll need to decide between rifled barrel (more accurate, slower load time) or smoothbore (less accurate higher rate of fire) beyond that mortars really don't have a lot of design to them, infantry mortars have usually just been a tube, a base plate, and a bipod. If anything you can dick around with the base plate design to make it lighter and more efficiently carried but there's honestly not a lot to them really

[Haishan]

FIRESTRIKE is the first land system actively used on the battlefield, it's use however is delegated against mines and IEDs currently however it's not unreasonable to assume that something more powerful would be feasible in a PMT setting so long as it's use is agreeable to everyone in a RP.

What I meant by the idea behind FIRESTRIKE is the modularity of the said concept. More power levels can be achieved by stacking up the required modules in a series or parallel beam combining. Thus by leveraging experience gained from ABL development, the US Army could have a viable land-based laser system but that's my wishful thinking.

Also is there any chance you can repost your Axis Nova post here in the PMT thread, after reading it over I think it'd be a wonderful resource to have and maybe Mac can link it in the thread OP

Thank you for the praise but I feel that it's misplaced at the moment--I need to tidy up the post with current developments and add more several links. For example,

MBDA - High Energy Laser Testing
Rheinmetall HEL Tested at Sea

There are a lot of nations who use nuclear-engined bombers for super long-range bombing missions and to loiter. I had the idea back, back in the day to create an interceptor that could hit Mach 5 to intercept these bombers before they were in range of releasing their payload. This is what ultimately came out of that: Lu-27 Condor.

Jolt days I presume, with buckyballs as tank armour and nuclear warheads being used as gun propellants. I am more comfortable with the one below as it is readily achievable now if necessity arise.

Ahhh, yes. Inasmuch as I have figured, hypersonic planes would primarily make good long range interceptors. I was thinking they might not just catch bombers far beyond payload deployment range, but also perhaps be used to intercept ballistic missiles around their late boost phase. That is the idea behind my own Mach-5 interceptor, the F-8 Corinus.

While methods differ, I prefer HEL since you can engage at particular range. At least some distance away from defenses that would be protecting the said launcher. As a bonus, look into Airborne Intercept program.

If we say I've scaled it down to 100mm, how would a portable launch platform be effectively designed?

A cursory glance into Strix might prove useful for your intended application. But as Thoricia had stated, there's a low level diameter limit for EFP-type SADARM to be useful. EFP nominally have one caliber worth of effectiveness and thus their usual format of 155mm, to hit the thin armour of vehicles such as tanks. But to expand more on the topic, perhaps you could instead look into NetSpear or K-Charge as there's not much that can be improved with EFP penetration performance.

Regarding portability--perhaps you could do some more research into it, on mortar types as to make your question less ambiguous. There were 60mm man-portable mortars but they didn't catch much post-WW2. Some kind of equipment are best reserved for vehicles. Please think up your intended application and usage first, that is do some basic research before asking so you would get your answer more precise.

[EsToVnIa]

Helio you trigger tf out of me everytime you use "buckyballs"

just wanted to let you know :V

[The Macabees]

Let me give you a heart attack: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=c ... buckyballs

Edit: Of course most of the results seem to be mine, but I was actually not the originator. "Buckyball armor" is an example early NS PMT from like 2003, first used by Armacorp.

[EsToVnIa]

maybe i'm just having selective memory but i swear every time on the irc you would correct him to "buckypaper"

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

You don't know how our understanding of physics, thermodynamics, biology, or any other number of sciences will change or drastically increase over the course of the next fifty years or more, you could probably guess and maybe get close. You can't tell what technologies will or won't exist unless you have some sort of crystal ball (which I'd love to hear the explanation for the science behind that) You honestly can't tell me that people from the thirties or the forties had any sort of idea of the technology or the grasp of science we have today. The same goes when writing for PMT, we have an idea, a thought or an inclination about how things might work, but in all honesty nobody knows so instead we focus on writing a good story as well collaborating amongst ourselves. And if the lack of hard data is infuriating to you I'd say I'm sorry but I honestly don't care because I'm not here to crunch numbers and figure out every minute little detail, I'm more concerned with having a good time and others
enjoying it as well.

This is just the basics. If you're RPing some future space war and want your soldiers to have nano-fusion crystal powered plasma coilguns, that's fine. I'm talking PMT that's closer to modern day, where the stuff that would be fielded is mostly stuff that's currently sitting in laboratories or as prototypes. Things like powered exoskeletons, free electron lasers, railguns, etc. So all I care is that the numbers, wherever they are, fall within the actual envelope of the technology and make some sense from a physical perspective.

At higher levels of PMT technological advancement, it becomes increasingly difficult to derive directly from that which has been conclusively developed and empirically tested, and thus more and more extrapolation is required and as a result extremely solid experimental data become scarcer, and reliance on theory becomes more and more pronounced. Low-PMT and MT+ can draw upon conclusive DARPA papers written about cutting-edge military technology, but across a time gap after which what is even cutting edge may become obsolete, your aforementioned serious technological justifications become much harder, perhaps even unfeasible, to produce.

Moreover, unless I have severely misinterpreted your statements, you claim that greater deviations from known reality a given technology or related element expresses ("the more extreme the number"), more must be done, paradoxically, to logically justify its in-universe existence ("the more serious technological [and logical] justification it needs"). I request you confirm or correct this interpretation before I make any erroneous conclusions based on it.

I'm talking closer to MT levels of PMT, what used to be called NSMT. Essentially what I'm saying is numbers outside the norm require more justification. So if you say you have a fighter than can go mach 2 you don't really have to elaborate on that because that's a common speed number which doesn't really require anything special to achieve. On the other hand if you say your fighter can go mach 4, that requires more explaining because that's never been done and has a variety of technical hurdles that would need to be addressed if said fighter is to be reasonably believable. You can extend this universally. If you say you have a network of photoreconaissance and radar spy satellites that doesn't need to be explained beyond saying "I have them". On the other hand if you claim you have a giant orbital battlestation with a multi-terawatt laser that requires a bit more elaboration, IMO. Basically don't expend energy explaining in detail things that are usual and that exist, only explain things that differ significantly from what actually exists or is believed to be feasible in RL.

[Havensky]

At some point, I have to admit to myself that I write superhero stories. Realistically, my characters 1) use equipment that's pretty far out there 2) fight enemies that are also way out there on the tech scale and 3) fly in giant airships that probably push the limits of realism

And that's perfectly OK if all parties give it a green light... that's part of the appeal of PMT.

I think the golden rule in PMT is that as long as all the interested parties are in agreement, then handwaving some of the tech things are fine. If you join a thread in Gholgoth, you have to accept that Kraven has super soldiers networked together in a some nightmarish crime-against-nature-device.

Sure, it's not the most realistic thing on earth - some of the stuff in my RPs have no grounding in reality - but gods damn it some of it is just plain fun.

[Vistora]

At higher levels of PMT technological advancement, it becomes increasingly difficult to derive directly from that which has been conclusively developed and empirically tested, and thus more and more extrapolation is required and as a result extremely solid experimental data become scarcer, and reliance on theory becomes more and more pronounced. Low-PMT and MT+ can draw upon conclusive DARPA papers written about cutting-edge military technology, but across a time gap after which what is even cutting edge may become obsolete, your aforementioned serious technological justifications become much harder, perhaps even unfeasible, to produce.

Moreover, unless I have severely misinterpreted your statements, you claim that greater deviations from known reality a given technology or related element expresses ("the more extreme the number"), more must be done, paradoxically, to logically justify its in-universe existence ("the more serious technological [and logical] justification it needs"). I request you confirm or correct this interpretation before I make any erroneous conclusions based on it.

I'm talking closer to MT levels of PMT, what used to be called NSMT. Essentially what I'm saying is numbers outside the norm require more justification. So if you say you have a fighter than can go mach 2 you don't really have to elaborate on that because that's a common speed number which doesn't really require anything special to achieve. On the other hand if you say your fighter can go mach 4, that requires more explaining because that's never been done and has a variety of technical hurdles that would need to be addressed if said fighter is to be reasonably believable. You can extend this universally. If you say you have a network of photoreconaissance and radar spy satellites that doesn't need to be explained beyond saying "I have them". On the other hand if you claim you have a giant orbital battlestation with a multi-terawatt laser that requires a bit more elaboration, IMO. Basically don't expend energy explaining in detail things that are usual and that exist, only explain things that differ significantly from what actually exists or is believed to be feasible in RL.

Fair enough. I misinterpreted that statement as being more of a blanket than it was.

[Thoricia]

You don't know how our understanding of physics, thermodynamics, biology, or any other number of sciences will change or drastically increase over the course of the next fifty years or more, you could probably guess and maybe get close. You can't tell what technologies will or won't exist unless you have some sort of crystal ball (which I'd love to hear the explanation for the science behind that) You honestly can't tell me that people from the thirties or the forties had any sort of idea of the technology or the grasp of science we have today. The same goes when writing for PMT, we have an idea, a thought or an inclination about how things might work, but in all honesty nobody knows so instead we focus on writing a good story as well collaborating amongst ourselves. And if the lack of hard data is infuriating to you I'd say I'm sorry but I honestly don't care because I'm not here to crunch numbers and figure out every minute little detail, I'm more concerned with having a good time and others
enjoying it as well.

This is just the basics. If you're RPing some future space war and want your soldiers to have nano-fusion crystal powered plasma coilguns, that's fine. I'm talking PMT that's closer to modern day, where the stuff that would be fielded is mostly stuff that's currently sitting in laboratories or as prototypes. Things like powered exoskeletons, free electron lasers, railguns, etc. So all I care is that the numbers, wherever they are, fall within the actual envelope of the technology and make some sense from a physical perspective.

At higher levels of PMT technological advancement, it becomes increasingly difficult to derive directly from that which has been conclusively developed and empirically tested, and thus more and more extrapolation is required and as a result extremely solid experimental data become scarcer, and reliance on theory becomes more and more pronounced. Low-PMT and MT+ can draw upon conclusive DARPA papers written about cutting-edge military technology, but across a time gap after which what is even cutting edge may become obsolete, your aforementioned serious technological justifications become much harder, perhaps even unfeasible, to produce.

Moreover, unless I have severely misinterpreted your statements, you claim that greater deviations from known reality a given technology or related element expresses ("the more extreme the number"), more must be done, paradoxically, to logically justify its in-universe existence ("the more serious technological [and logical] justification it needs"). I request you confirm or correct this interpretation before I make any erroneous conclusions based on it.

I'm talking closer to MT levels of PMT, what used to be called NSMT. Essentially what I'm saying is numbers outside the norm require more justification. So if you say you have a fighter than can go mach 2 you don't really have to elaborate on that because that's a common speed number which doesn't really require anything special to achieve. On the other hand if you say your fighter can go mach 4, that requires more explaining because that's never been done and has a variety of technical hurdles that would need to be addressed if said fighter is to be reasonably believable. You can extend this universally. If you say you have a network of photoreconaissance and radar spy satellites that doesn't need to be explained beyond saying "I have them". On the other hand if you claim you have a giant orbital battlestation with a multi-terawatt laser that requires a bit more elaboration, IMO. Basically don't expend energy explaining in detail things that are usual and that exist, only explain things that differ significantly from what actually exists or is believed to be feasible in RL.

People actually don't to need to explain the science. Again it's completely unreasonable for people to demand others players to be masters across multiple science disciplines, if it's used as a plot device or if it's a well written description that's more than just numbers, I'll personally put more stock in that person's abilities as a writer than someone that uses techno jargon because it's always been my experience that jargon people are writing competitively while the others are here to have a good time regardless of what level of PMT you're playing at.

[Balochistan and New York]

Would anyone have the specs for a Nuclear Powered tank? or some powerful air, water or land equipment?

[Post War America]

Would anyone have the specs for a Nuclear Powered tank? or some powerful air, water or land equipment?

If you're not looking for realism, I have a fusion powered hovertank, and a similar Light Armored Vehicle.

[Thoricia]

Would anyone have the specs for a Nuclear Powered tank? or some powerful air, water or land equipment?

I think instead of specs you should ask yourself why and how first. Why does my country need a fission powered armored vehicle? How does it fit the aesthetics for my country? How can I use this while making it fair and balanced for others I want to play with? Why does everything fielded by my armed forces?

As a personal side note I honestly feel it's more realistic when players have some flaws in their military equipment, the are numerous examples across history of armies and navies using flawed equipment and whenever I see someone that has that I know that they're a good player because they're trying for a sense of balance and they're not trying to win.

[UniversalCommons]

Would anyone have the specs for a Nuclear Powered tank? or some powerful air, water or land equipment?

A tank could run on a nuclear battery easily. A radioisotope battery could run for 10-20 years. It would generate electricity for an electric drive train. I have no idea why you want a tank that would run for 10 years, but have a chance to spread Strontium 90 or some other radioactive material over the battlefield. There is no reason that a radioisotope battery could not run a high powered electric turbine engine.