Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
Fine by me.Lonestar wrote:Steve has told me that it is not to be used in the actual game, and I accept the ruling.
Look Ryan. If you are going to go all paranoid and antsy over the slightest perceived provocation, you aren't going to get much sympathy if someone decides to nuke you out of spite.Ryan Thunder wrote:Fine by me.Lonestar wrote:Steve has told me that it is not to be used in the actual game, and I accept the ruling.
Wait, wait, it's paranoid of me to be concerned if it looks like Lonestar's trying to set up a fucking cold war scenario again?Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Look Ryan. If you are going to go all paranoid and antsy over the slightest perceived provocation, you aren't going to get much sympathy if someone decides to nuke you out of spite.Ryan Thunder wrote:Fine by me.Lonestar wrote:Steve has told me that it is not to be used in the actual game, and I accept the ruling.
Wouldn't a cold war just give you a nice story to work through off the bat? After all even losing a war is only a problem if you're playing to win.Ryan Thunder wrote:Wait, wait, it's paranoid of me to be concerned if it looks like Lonestar's trying to set up a fucking cold war scenario again?
You would think so, but the end result was pretty much dire boredom last time.Norade wrote:Wouldn't a cold war just gibe you a nice story to work through of the bat? It's only a problem if you're playing to win.Ryan Thunder wrote:Wait, wait, it's paranoid of me to be concerned if it looks like Lonestar's trying to set up a fucking cold war scenario again?
Then quit whining, form an alliance, and kick his ass back. You might not always be alone and cut off if you were a bit more proactive.Ryan Thunder wrote:You would think so, but the end result was pretty much dire boredom last time.Norade wrote:Wouldn't a cold war just gibe you a nice story to work through of the bat? It's only a problem if you're playing to win.Ryan Thunder wrote:Wait, wait, it's paranoid of me to be concerned if it looks like Lonestar's trying to set up a fucking cold war scenario again?
Well fuck it, if you don't even give a shit about it I must be overinflating it in my mind.Siege wrote:Why do you even care, Ryan? You're half a galaxy away on the other bloody side of the UN from Shep, Lonestar et al. What's your beef?
Way I'm looking at it, if Shep, Lonestar, Skimmer and Beowulf want to have a cold war, or blow up planets, or do whatever in their little corner of space, they can go right ahead. They're on the other side of the map from me, their actions are very much unlikely to affect me in any significant way. If I were sitting next to them I might be slightly worried, but as it stands? Not so much.Ryan Thunder wrote:Well fuck it, if you don't even give a shit about it I must be overinflating it in my mind.
Ideally? Opening OrBat of some sort, if just listing how you've divvied your GDP-worth of starting military value points, a nice opening post, and maybe your military expansion plans for 3400.Force Lord wrote:Shroom is MIA as far as I know.
What things should we have ready by the time the game starts?
None of the above actually makes much of a difference. The resultant gain in kinetic energy cannot be greater than the amount of energy used to accelerate the object in the first place. If it does, then conservation of energy is blown, and physics doesn't work as we think it does. 1.67 x 10[sup]12[/sup] W for 25 seconds is ~10 kilotons. Therefore the maximum energy of a projectile accelerated by that amount of power, for that amount of time, is 10 kilotons. If the engine is only 80% efficient, then it's 8 kilotons max. Ergo, the maximum dV of your projectile is 27km/s.Norade wrote:I had guessed as much, as it seemed pretty off to me. However I think I did the math for my missiles right, I haven't had to do much with physics since back in high school though so please correct me on my horrible mistakes.Beowulf wrote:Your math is grossly wrong.Norade wrote:I have an issue, I designed my mainline capital ships to be armed with lasers, but doing some poking around it seems that for the same energy a mass driver will damn near always give you more bang for your buck. I mean, why bother using your wattage for lasers when that same energy does more damage if put towards launching a chunk of metal at something. The issue I have is that a 1.08e16 W laser imparts 2.6 megatons to a target, that same force used to accelerate a mass of 50,000 tons would accelerate it to around 70% the speed of light and cause your 5.5m by 27m chunk of magnetically coated Tungsten to impart hundreds of teratons of energy. Changing to a system like this hows that given the right focus technology wise even Mater/Anti-mater can deal serious damage to damn near anything.
This of course assumes my math isn't grossly wrong.
The same goes for an efficient VASIMR engine using compressed Xenon as a fuel, using a capacitor that would get 1 kiloton from a 60% efficient laser will propel a rather heavy warhead very quickly into things for high gigaton to low teraton energy transfers.
Mass of a fully fueled missile = 44,000kg
Mass of a missile that has expended all propellant = 11,200kg
The Xenon compressed by the force of 500 gravities is forced through a VASIMR style engine that is feed 1.67 x 1012 W at a rate of 1312kg per second. That we can convert 80% of that wattage into accelerating the gas we then get that 1,312kg of gas being forced out of the rocket at a velocity of 124.6 million m/s. If my math is right this means that, assuming 100% of this force is translated into forward momentum we get a force of 1.6728 x 10[sup]11[/sup] N acting against a mass of 42,688kg thus propelling it forward at 3,918,666m/s after the first second of engine burn. Even assuming that the missile doesn't accelerate faster as the missile loses fuel mass we end up with a final velocity of 97,966,650m/s after a full 25 second burn. I am aware that some velocity should be lost at this percentage of light speed, but as I did not increase the acceleration after each second to account for lost mass I think it is a good rough estimate.
Plugging 11,200kg and 97,966,650m/s into the calculator on the main site gives me a kinetic energy of 14 gigatons as a rough estimate for energy that would be imparted to a target when the missile strikes after a full burn.
This is assuming that the missile starts at a velocity of 0 m/s and my math isn't horribly wrong again.
Shroom's out for some HUEG NUERSING FINALS until the first week of July, as I recall.Steve wrote:Anyone hear from Shroom? I know he was going to spend June mostly off-line due to education or something....
That's my point. The very idea is laughable. Therefore, the distinction between civilian and military ships is sort of arbitrary- accomodations for Comrade Soldier and Comrade Computer Technician are going to be broadly identical, and so forth. The only difference is that ships will not be armed if there is no foreseeable need for them to defend themselves, because they're rear area units that will either operate only in secure space or under convoy.Stas Bush wrote:Private starships? You're kidding, right?Simon_Jester wrote:Well, in the Commune, the distinction between civilian and military ships is going to be hazier- no private property, at least not on the scale of a starship, right?
Okay, anyone fluent in spreadsheets please alter the one Teleros set up to add Stas and Katr_Kana? Then people can start marking our mutual relations with them.Stas Bush wrote:Yeah, that's true. BTW, Steve, can I mess with Commune wiki page (rename ships, add some info and illustrations), and how do I make international relations with others? I see a chart - should I perhaps just assume neutrality and allow everyone else to define their own relations with me?
