Newtonian Aurora

[UnLimiTeD]

The main thing I can read from that article, as I have already argued in the case of homing Slugs, is the inconsiderate cost.
Such an Anti-Matter Warhead would have the sole advantage over a nuclear warhead of massively saving space.
Costwise an entire magazine of 10 Ton nuclear warheads would probably still be noticeably cheaper.
Would it be possible to channel an Anti-Matter Explosion into a Laser Rod as well?

[jseah]

AM warheads vs nukes are basically like missiles vs beams in Aurora 5.53. 

Immensely higher cost and complex logistics. 
But packing far far more destruction into the same weight to eke out another order of magnitude more firepower per ton. 

[UnLimiTeD]

Missiles in current Aurora are logistically and economically more demanding, but offer more range, burst damage, and firepower/ton.
AM warheads would be economically more demanding, even more so, and offer drastically higher burst damage and firepower/ton, and logistics would be pretty easy, in the sense of; you only have a few.
Additionally, keep in mind that a single lucky railgun hit could kill an opposing ship, so the benefit might be less in most circumstances, while a single hit on an AM core would result in the sure annihilation of the ship while the same hit in a nuke magazine, and be it 10x the size, would only destroy part of your ammo.

Tl;dr
Yes, but with higher costs and less potential gain.
A pure specialization option.

[Elouda]

Dont forget that AM also means AM drives for said ships and missiles, which is where the real advantages would come from in my opinion; an AM drive be it ship or missile sized would have much higher output than a fusion one, and this would mean an edge tactically.

[jseah]

AM catalyzed fusion drive, ditto power core. 
AM warheads. 

Higher fuel efficiency (more range), higher speeds, higher firepower per ton. 
One lucky hit penetrating armour means your ship blows itself up. 

Tactical advantage in every area except defence. 


AM warheads alone could serve as exceedingly expensive, but correspondingly more effective, anti-missiles. 
Given that M/AM reactions are far more powerful than fusion warheads, the kill radius of AM anti-missiles is increased by alot.  So your interception chance against incoming missiles is much higher and you kill more of them. 

By the time the missiles have broken through your AMM umbrella, you'd have no more AM warheads left. 
Or at least, so you hope.  =)  Good luck to you if you don't...

[UnLimiTeD]

To high risk given the obscene costs. You could just create a half dozen more ships that more slower.
As a booster, thus a small amount, I can probably see it.
Also, for double the detonation range, you need what, 4x the power?
So it would definitely not be cost effective to use them as amms.
It's ultimately a very late-game tech, highly efficient, extremely expensive, and with barely containable risks, from spontaneous combustion during movement to extreme vulnerability to enemy hits.
Once there's the money, it'll be used, but it'll take decades until that money can't be spend elsewhere.
Also, the weapons are pretty pointless against planets.

[Elouda]

Not sure how an AM warhead is 'pointless' against a planet. I can't think of a better way to eradicate surface targets and completely wipe out electronics with EMP than an AM bomb. And theres no fallout, just lots of second-hand irradiated material.

Also, I think 'spontaneous combustion' during movement might is an exxageration; I might see early drives being prone, but mature AM drives would probably not be any worse than a fusion torch maintenance wise (combat damage is a different matter).

The Dread Empire's Fall triology is a series set in a late-AM era universe, and theres some interesting ideas for storing AM there, like anti-hydrogen being stored in small pellets capable of self-containment, meaning that unless caught in an explosion they're rather safe.

[UnLimiTeD]

The way it's pointless against a planet is that yes, the effect is huge, it will probably blow a few mountains away and blanket the good part of a continent, taking a measurable part of the local atmosphere with it, but also a measurable part of your empires yearly income.
For the same price, you could unload a few hundred small nukes on the planet, engineer a bioweapon against the inhabitants, or just drop a few armygroups to take the planet the old-fashioned way.
Sure it's possible.
It just doesn't make sense.
Far less so than in space, the planet doesn't run away, you can get as much conventional ammo as you like.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Please can we avoid statements such as "Please learn more about nuclear physics before you say this kind of thing" or "Do you know anything about nuclear physics?". By all means, reference your own expertise on a subject but please avoid any denigration of anyone else's knowledge.

Thanks,
Steve

[procyon]

That would be important if our officer's were doing the math with pencil and paper. Luckily they will have computers.The trajectories for all of those scenarios, and more, can be calculated in seconds with modern computers and modern commercially available software, like this one: http://www.agi.com/products/by-product-type/applications/stk/stk-for-space-missions/

True, and how long has it taken to put all that together.
It wasn't in a few hours.  The data and programs took a long time to generate.
And even with modern computers, the 'fudge factor' still exists.  If we could calculate these things exactly, we wouldn't still be guessing most asteroids' orbits.  We would also be able to fire two part 'penetrators' at comets and asteroids from Earth orbit.  Trust me, we still need to make a LOT of course corrections on the way to shoot something as big as an asteroid that we have been watching for years.

As for breaking strengths of material, I actually am an engineer and physicist so I have a pretty good idea on this one.  If we are assuming a projectile leaving a railgun at perhaps 10km/s (is this acceptable?), and assuming it is shot from a ship with a diameter of 50m with the whole length of the ship used for the driver, it will leave the barrel in .01 seconds after first acceleration assuming even acceleration of the projectile.  One G is an acceleration of appox 10m/s/s.  The projectile from this gun just withstood 1 MILLION G's of acceleration stress.

Google the load strength of any material known per mass, and see if it will withstand 1,000,000 times its mass in load....  You will find that NOTHING comes remotely close.  Let alone a piece of machinery with the fine calibration to make in course adjustments.  Every known material in this gun would be reduced to its component atoms (most likely).  Some dense materials might reach degenerate matter levels of compaction if your railgun had a high enough muzzle velocity.  (The thought of shooting unstable degenerate matter at something so that it detonates might be fun though...).


On the thought of nukes suffering sympathetic detonation, not likely at all.  The only case I might see was if a ship had one prepped for launch and for some insane reason had the thing armed in the launcher - and then the vessel was hit.  Otherwise, not going to happen.  If it was unstable enough to detonate under inadvertent acceleration/heating/etc, I wouldn't want it on MY ship...

And I don't know if this would go in a suggestions thread or here, (this is the only group of threads I have spent much time on game-wise), but I think most all of the missiles should have the option to default to a kinetic kill if you choose not to arm them.  A several ton intact nuclear/conventional/shapnel warhead hitting a ship at km/s velocities isn't going to look a lot different than a big old chunk of metal doing the same thing.  Using a nuke this way might be an expensive waste, but might be attractive if you have a bunch of small ships near the target - or perhaps your colony on a moon with no atmosphere to protect them - or an orbital habitat.  Just a thought.

[bean]

My apologies.  I will say that it annoys me when people talk about things they apparently have no knowledge of.  I say apparently because statements made are completely inaccurate.
I'll ask: how would one indicate that a commentor does not know what he is talking about?

Procyon:
50m is absurdly short for a realistic 10km/s coilgun anyway.  Based on what I remember, 1 km is more likely.

[procyon]

The way it's pointless against a planet is that yes, the effect is huge, it will probably blow a few mountains away and blanket the good part of a continent, taking a measurable part of the local atmosphere with it, but also a measurable part of your empires yearly income.
For the same price, you could unload a few hundred small nukes on the planet, engineer a bioweapon against the inhabitants, or just drop a few armygroups to take the planet the old-fashioned way.
Sure it's possible.
It just doesn't make sense.
Far less so than in space, the planet doesn't run away, you can get as much conventional ammo as you like.

I tend to agree with this after a fashion.  The latest and best tech isn't really necessary against a static target.  Not that you couldn't use it, but most folks would prefer to use up the older stuff first.  (Hence the fact we are still burning up 70's era munitions in the middle east.)

This is probably the biggest reason we don't upgrade our arsenal of ICBMs every few years.  Decades old missile are still plenty accurate enough to hit a city with a nuke.  We can do much better now, but what would be the point?

[procyon]

My apologies.  I will say that it annoys me when people talk about things they apparently have no knowledge of.  I say apparently because statements made are completely inaccurate.
I'll ask: how would one indicate that a commentor does not know what he is talking about?

Procyon:
50m is absurdly short for a realistic 10km/s coilgun anyway.  Based on what I remember, 1 km is more likely.

True,  probably longer in reality.  Just basing it off of the ship designs I have seen here giving the ships diameters in the 45 to 50m range.  Even if we stretch the ship to twice that long we are still talking a quarter million G's.  I hesitate to think of how big a ship would have to be in NA to have a diameter of close to a km.

And no offense taken.  I was just giving the credentials of mine.

EDITTED
Removed this statement as I also don't have my glasses here at this station and BADLY misread what was on your post.  Ooops

As for knowing what to say to someone that seems to be 'misinformed', I simply show what I have as information and ask if they have any sources to support what they claim.  Works well enough here with my coworkers.  A lot of times they actually bring me something interesting and educational.  (Sometimes it is just plain funny to read also.)
A professor of mine once told me that there is something to be learned in everything, even if it was only that there was nothing to learn there.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

My apologies.  I will say that it annoys me when people talk about things they apparently have no knowledge of.  I say apparently because statements made are completely inaccurate.
I'll ask: how would one indicate that a commentor does not know what he is talking about?

Well, an option to seriously consider is not to indicate at all that a person doesn't know what they are talking about. In my experience, implying that someone is an idiot does not make them particularly receptive to your counter-argument. Put forward your own opinion and back it up with whatever factual sources you can. In many cases, the other person will accept your evidence and change their mind. If they continue to disagree in the face of what you believe is overwhelming evidence, then you are never going to change their mind anyway. Just agree to disagree and end the discussion.

Steve

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

My first successful missile test for Newtonian Aurora. A Terran Federation Vanguard class destroyer launched a Sabre Nuclear Anti-Ship Missile with a laser head at a stationary Chinese destroyer near Venus. It just seemed fitting based on my campaign histories that a Chinese destroyer should be the first to experience a nuclear attack in Newtonian Aurora . At the time of launch, the Vanguard was ten million kilometers away on a heading of 342 degrees at a speed of 242 km/s. The missile began with the same speed and heading as the Vanguard and an acceleration of 40 m/s. After launch, the destroyer began a braking manoeuvre at 5.46 m/s with the intention of decelerating to rest and then returning to Earth. The missile gradually drew away from the ship as their acceleration rates changed. By the time it intercepted the destroyer it was moving at close to 1000 km/s. As the destroyer was stationary, the 500 kiloton warhead detonated just ten meters away. All nine x-ray lasers generated by the detonation hit the target ship and eviscerated it. The wavefront from the explosion was academic but devastating nontheless

However I forgot to include the destruction code so the target ship is still there even though all its armour and systems are gone



This isn't a real campaign btw - just a basic setup for various weapon tests.

Steve