Mergy Sci-fi races??

Tigara · Apr 10, 2002

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Originally posted by Darkwing:
What's the range and energy output on those energy mines?
I doubt they'll match photorps. The warp core bit is drama. How often did the station wobble off it's axis or otherwise threaten to fall apart, also for drama? <hr></blockquote>
Once

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>B5 ships are long and lean, so have much less mass and volume. That's where size matters. A long skeletal array with some metal covering is not a match for a denser structure. In ST6, when the Ent-A has a hole blown through the saucer, it covered an area that looks bigger to me than the neck of an EA destroyer<hr></blockquote>
Key phrase "To me" The A was around 300-400 meters long. An EA destroyer is around 1700 meters long. So, its neck is a lot bigger than that hole
<blockquote>Quote:<hr> , so the EA ship could lose it's forward hangar bay and weapons on the same hit that was merely a damage control problem for the Ent-A. Then, too, the Romulan D'Deridex is much larger than the Galaxy class (600 odd meters), by around 1.5-2 times. <hr></blockquote>
Even though most of its internal volume is empty space. It is all skeletal structure excpept the head.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Besides, having been in the Navy a while, I can tell you, a destroyer can wipe out an aircraft carrier before it even know the destroyer is hostile, and that's a difference of many times in mass. It's in the weapons. Now a cruiser versus a destroyer, much closer in mass, similar weapons, the cruiser has the advantage of mass to absorb damage. It's a more even fight. <hr></blockquote>
Your point being? An EA destroyer is a lot more than a carrier.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The phaser array thing concentrates the fire of all the arrays into one beam. In movie era, though, individual banks are still the norm. And as I said earlier, PRC destroyers have many more weapons than US destroyers, but ours are more sophisticated, more accurate, and have better range. We'd wipe them out before they were even in range to shoot at us. Same here. <hr></blockquote>
Yes, but this is sci-fi. Similar facts don't nessessarily apply.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr>How is gravimetric tech (which ST also has) going to prevent transporter use? <hr></blockquote>
Gravimetric shields. No way a beam which is so easily fooled could get through a system that can block weapons fire.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Marines expecting the foe to blow the hatch and enter will be surprised, as will the bridge and engineering folks, who don't have a convenient platoon on hand to stop the intruders that appear as if by magic inside the perimeter. Or just beam a bomb nect to the engines.
Also, those Marines are gonna be surprised when phaser hits totally disintegrate their comrades, and they find themselves being beamed into a brig, or maybe space.<hr></blockquote>

Unless their captains are fools, they would automatically station marines in key sectors. Transportation isn't instantaneous. There is a few seconds of delay. Also, they could all get air masks and turn off the atmosphere in engineering for all I care. Plenty of defensive ideas. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>ECM only works on things it's designed for. Radar chaff does nothing against sonar, which is why there are other systems for that, such as prairie-masker. ST uses subspace, rather than E-M spectra, and would be outside the whole field of tech that B5 uses.<hr></blockquote>
Are you telling me that a wall of static or some other kind of electronic noise wouldn't do the trick. Transporters are VERY easily spoiled. I don't care if it's for drama. They made it part of the show. Gives me the advantage.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>First Ones vessels and tech derived from them - EA Shadow-tech ships and White Stars would be the best matches, and even then, I'd give good odds for Treknology.<hr></blockquote>
I guess that is your descision however misguided.

PS: That was a pain to reply to. How does KoshN do it?

**DONOTDELETE** · Apr 10, 2002

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Originally posted by Tigara:
Once 
How often were the characters likely to die because something was wrong? Reactor about to blow, ship out of weapons, etc.

Key phrase "To me" The A was around 300-400 meters long. An EA destroyer is around 1700 meters long. So, its neck is a lot bigger than that hole


But how much of that neck would be left?

Even though most of its internal volume is empty space. It is all skeletal structure excpept the head.
Your point being? An EA destroyer is a lot more than a carrier.


A carrier is a lot bigger than a destroyer, and is thought of as a "big gun" in power projection, but a destroyer could make mincemeat of it before it even launched it's first aircraft.


Yes, but this is sci-fi. Similar facts don't nessessarily apply.

Depends on your thinking, i guess.

Gravimetric shields. No way a beam which is so easily fooled could get through a system that can block weapons fire.

And yet, they usually found a Treknobabble way to get through.



Unless their captains are fools, they would automatically station marines in key sectors. Transportation isn't instantaneous. There is a few seconds of delay. Also, they could all get air masks and turn off the atmosphere in engineering for all I care. Plenty of defensive ideas.

So a couple are on the bridge or engineering - there won't be many, they'd get in the way of folks who actually do useful work. No way a platoon or two would be handy, they'd be by the airlocks. Besides, what if I just beam a bomb onboard? gas that? What good are those marines, then? Boarding parties would assume a lack of atmosphere in a combat situation, so no points there, even assuming your engineers can suit up fast enough to use this tactic. The transporter protects you until your formed, so the delay is not a problem. By the time the crew's figured out why the lightshow and noise is going on, and processed the idea, they'll be dead or unconcious.


Are you telling me that a wall of static or some other kind of electronic noise wouldn't do the trick. Transporters are VERY easily spoiled. I don't care if it's for drama. They made it part of the show. Gives me the advantage.


Not really. It's not that easily fooled. You're exaggerating.

I guess that is your descision however misguided.

Turn it around.

PS: That was a pain to reply to. How does KoshN do it?
Patience. More than i have.

**DONOTDELETE** · Apr 10, 2002

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Tigara wrote:
Also, they could all get air masks and turn off the atmosphere in engineering for all I care. Plenty of defensive ideas.<hr></blockquote>With the technology level of younger races, it might be hellishly efficient. Maximum gain with minimum waste, given that in the universe of Star Trek, it is customary to board an enemy ship with a phaser set to stun, with no environment suit or armor. When you encounter a Gaim war drone in such condition, nobody will even *want* to know where your head is.

Besides, if a danger or sudden boardings would become evident, ships would be equipped with automatic defense systems, run by artificial intellect. Automatic PPG units backed up by robotic guardians (or why not the Narn Bat Squad). Anyone who fails to show FFID will taste plasma before he/she/it has even fully materialized.

Another question regarding the imaginary technology of transporters: what is their range? What are their limitations? Why don't battles in Star Trek end quickly with transporting a bomb into the enemy ship? I fail to recall the explanation/excuse, but guess it was either range or countermeasures.

Regarding the efficiency of phasers, and the preferability of apples to chairs.

Now that would be a good question. You can estimate the effect and efficiency of a laser, a weapon available already now. You can guess the efficiency of a neutron cannon (Minbari toy) or antineutron beam (a more advanced toy). Because the underlying particles exist. You know their approximate mass, their probability of hitting, their interactions with various other materials and fields, waves and/or particles. You know pretty well that no imaginable shield or interceptor can efficiently keep out an an antineutron beam. If such a thing hits, it will cut badly.

We can calculate the performance of ion engines. Given enormous amounts of time and patience, we could approximate the qualities of organic armor assembled from "living" nanomachines. We could calculate the effects of fission and fusion bombs, and even antimatter bombs provided that antimatter could be produced. We could imagine how fast a hostile strain of nanomachnes could destroy a planet, and how many milli/micro/nanograms of the infector would be needed to ensure destruction.

With time travel, phasers, jump engines, warp engines, gravity engines, photon torepdoes, shields or transporters, this is impossible. Why? Because those technologies have been imagined "top down" as contrary to "bottom up". What do I mean by this? This tradition, widespread in many forms of SF but especially widespread in the wonderful world of Trek, creates the end result first. If the end result sounds thrilling, you add a convenient explanation.

To those interested in technical comparisons of at least slight realism, the "top down" approach creates an impossible obstacle. Anyone can claim anything about "top down" technologies, and nobody can guess their interactions, strengths or weaknesses. With "bottom up" technologies derivated upwards from current theoretical knowledge, you can at least draw some conclusions.

But when you throw them all into the same pot and add different physical laws. The result is a mess open to creative interpretation. How is the Great Machine powered? My guess is simple. In a deep dark room about which even Draal does not know, there is an rather large energizer bunny... /ubbthreads/images/icons/grin.gif

Tigara · Apr 10, 2002

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Originally posted by Darkwing:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Originally posted by Tigara:
Once 
How often were the characters likely to die because something was wrong? Reactor about to blow, ship out of weapons, etc.

Key phrase "To me" The A was around 300-400 meters long. An EA destroyer is around 1700 meters long. So, its neck is a lot bigger than that hole


But how much of that neck would be left?

Even though most of its internal volume is empty space. It is all skeletal structure excpept the head.
Your point being? An EA destroyer is a lot more than a carrier.


A carrier is a lot bigger than a destroyer, and is thought of as a "big gun" in power projection, but a destroyer could make mincemeat of it before it even launched it's first aircraft.


Yes, but this is sci-fi. Similar facts don't nessessarily apply.

Depends on your thinking, i guess.

Gravimetric shields. No way a beam which is so easily fooled could get through a system that can block weapons fire.

And yet, they usually found a Treknobabble way to get through.



Unless their captains are fools, they would automatically station marines in key sectors. Transportation isn't instantaneous. There is a few seconds of delay. Also, they could all get air masks and turn off the atmosphere in engineering for all I care. Plenty of defensive ideas.

So a couple are on the bridge or engineering - there won't be many, they'd get in the way of folks who actually do useful work. No way a platoon or two would be handy, they'd be by the airlocks. Besides, what if I just beam a bomb onboard? gas that? What good are those marines, then? Boarding parties would assume a lack of atmosphere in a combat situation, so no points there, even assuming your engineers can suit up fast enough to use this tactic. The transporter protects you until your formed, so the delay is not a problem. By the time the crew's figured out why the lightshow and noise is going on, and processed the idea, they'll be dead or unconcious.


Are you telling me that a wall of static or some other kind of electronic noise wouldn't do the trick. Transporters are VERY easily spoiled. I don't care if it's for drama. They made it part of the show. Gives me the advantage.


Not really. It's not that easily fooled. You're exaggerating.

I guess that is your descision however misguided.

Turn it around.

PS: That was a pain to reply to. How does KoshN do it?
Patience. More than i have.<hr></blockquote>
OK. I am not going to quote these. I am going to list em.

I dunno. Only reactor problem I can think of was sabotage

About 50 meters all around

That is true. But an Omega is also a powerhouse. It was designed to be the big gun ship of Earth Force. So it is bristling with weapons.

Can't argue that.

Yes. The most potent weapon of Star Trek. Confuse the enemy with bizarre words. /ubbthreads/images/icons/tongue.gif

Good point. The transporter is Trek's major advantage against the younger gravimetric-less races. Don't know how to pass that one. Lennier?

I guess our heroes just have bad luck /ubbthreads/images/icons/tongue.gif . We've seen that simple static storms screw with it.

Let's not start that.

Same here

**DONOTDELETE** · Apr 10, 2002

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Tigara (probably) wrote:
Good point. The transporter is Trek's major advantage against the younger gravimetric-less races. Don't know how to pass that one. Lennier?<hr></blockquote>
Unable to address the matter of transporters physically, I must approach it logically. I would ask a question. If one can beam a bomb, why are bombs not beamed? There is obviously something stopping it, or this would be the main weapon of Star Trek ships. You would not have to beam it aboard. Just beam it close enough into space. The rest should go just like the allmighty Ivanova said. Boom.

Why doesn't every battle in Star Trek end with such a transporter-induced boom? I fail to recall any explanation, only that this does not happen. Why? I would say that something stops it. Perhaps range. Perhaps countermeasures. Or perhaps ships start shooting from 10 times beyond transporter range. The question is similar to the one about jump engines. Why not tear the enemy ship apart? Because by the time you get close enough, somebody would have made a thousand nice holes into your ship.

Sidenote

Regarding electronic countermeasures (electronic might be a mistaken term in case of Shadow technology). We have actually seen Shadow Vessels using electronic countermeasures. Once. That collapsed a dozen jump points and destroyed a Narn battle group.

Tigara · Apr 10, 2002

Well, I think the reasin for that is, in order to use the transporter, one must lower one's shields. One doesn't want to do that in a heated battle, especially if the enemy has a bunch of fighters, ready to exploit weaknesses and breaching pods. We found the transporter's weakness.

EM weapons. I just remembered something. In "In the Beginning" the Minbari ship's scans are enough to disable jump engines as well as kill their sensors. So there are EM weapons that are not specific to one componant.

**DONOTDELETE** · Apr 10, 2002

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Originally posted by Lennier:
Unable to address the matter of transporters physically, I must approach it logically. I would ask a question. If one can beam a bomb, why are bombs not beamed? There is obviously something stopping it, or this would be the main weapon of Star Trek ships. You would not have to beam it aboard. Just beam it close enough into space. The rest should go just like the allmighty Ivanova said. Boom.

Why doesn't every battle in Star Trek end with such a transporter-induced boom? I fail to recall any explanation, only that this does not happen. Why? I would say that something stops it. Perhaps range. Perhaps countermeasures. Or perhaps ships start shooting from 10 times beyond transporter range. The question is similar to the one about jump engines. Why not tear the enemy ship apart? Because by the time you get close enough, somebody would have made a thousand nice holes into your ship.
<hr></blockquote>
Okay, given the enemy has equivalent tech, the transporter won't work, due to
1) weapons ranges exceeding transporter range (750,000km for photorps, lightminutes for phasers, 40,000 km for transporter)
2) shields
Therefore, it doesn't happen on Trek. But a Trek ship meeting an EA ship could do so.

**DONOTDELETE** · Apr 10, 2002

Pox on it. While my Romulan Warbirds could easily conquer,
I have gotten impatient. I am summoning Apollyon the Destroyer from BTRC's Timelords (yet another 'top-down' idea), and unleashing him on the galaxy.
See, in the beginning was the end, and in the end were the Designers, the last race in the universe to achieve sentience.
Oh, it's a long story. Some other time, it's way past time to go home.
doscorova

http://www.btrc.net/

**DONOTDELETE** · Apr 10, 2002

Interesting.

Lasers should work pretty darn well from a lightsecond distance. That's about as far as the Moon, is it not? Accelerate some particles with standing mass, and you will achieve lesser speeds, but high speeds nevertheless. Neutrons accelerated to 2/3 C would be only a third slower.

**DONOTDELETE** · Apr 10, 2002

Just wanted to add to the reading list:

http://www.beyond2000.com/news/apr_01/story_1099.html

**DONOTDELETE** · Apr 10, 2002

Quite interesting.

It might allow better landing modules for spacecraft, and perhaps for quicker atmospheric flight. But using plasma weapons at long range within atmosphere... is dubious in my mind. Yes. They would be fast. But light is faster, requires no magnetic containment field and has no standing mass. Hence in the field of destructive technology, laser would come before plasma.

Tigara · Apr 10, 2002

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Originally posted by Darkwing:
Pox on it. While my Romulan Warbirds could easily conquer,
<hr></blockquote>
All the evidence provided yet he is still blindly sure about an inferior vessel. I tried my best.

**DONOTDELETE** · Apr 10, 2002

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Originally posted by Tigara:
All the evidence provided yet he is still blindly sure about an inferior vessel. I tried my best.<hr></blockquote>

Not blind, no. Your evidence is mostly that "bigger is better" and "more guns, more guns".
Let's try an analogy here. You get an early 19th century Man-of-War, with 144 guns. I'll take a Patrol boat. While you're trying to tack, I'll launch missiles or torpedoes from up-wind and sink you before you're close enough for a bow-chaser shot. Who won? The big, heavily armed ship, or the little, technologically advanced one? That's my point. What I *liked* about B5 was that it's tech was more reasonable in a hard sf universe, but in a clash with a space-fantasy culture with less constraints on tech, it loses.
Now, how about another tack. Coming in at 1700C, under Cherenkov drive, the Valley Forge drops out and orbits Earth just long enough to drop a couple hundred Mobile Infantry on Geneva. Just to be fair, Ticonderoga can do the same to Starfleet HQ, and Yorktown holds a port visit on scenic Coruscant.
If you've ever read Starship Troopers, this makes an interesting scenario. Or maybe a Humanx KK-drive freighter can visit Narn. I'm sure the EA would love to buy General Products hulls.
Actually, I thought about this alot, because in a Star Frontiers game I used to run, the characters ran into a spatial anomaly which let them go tripping through the probabilities, and they ended up importing and exporting tech through the multiverse.
Just imagine copying the process for transparisteel, then going to a world that hasn't got it, and of course no knowledge that someone else holds the patents on it in the last world you visited. You can make a lot of money, convertible to movable assets, and at the same time raise the quality of life in a given place. Sell a Niven's Known Universe Autodoc to Foster's Humanx Commonwealth, and then turn a round and sell Verdidian Weave to Jinx. Melange would be a popular item on many worlds - imagine introducing the Narns to the Fremen. Replicants on Tatooine. E E Smith/Stephen Goldin's D'Alemberts visiting the Enterprise, or a Lensman fighting Darth Vader. Traveller, Star Frontiers, and Buck Rogers. Ever see the BR ep where Buck meets an old soldier, played by the guy that played Flash Gordon way back when? Speaking of which, since that incarnation of Buck was by the same folks behind Battlestar Galactica, and they used a lot of the same sets, then went searching for the "lost tribes of humanity", I always figured that one day the Searcher would run across the Galactica. Speaking of which, both the BG and Cylon Base-starsare bigger than an Omega, but they only have fighters and point-defense weapons. Who'd'ya think would win a fight between 'em? I'd put my money on the EA, here. Ditto the Searcher, although I did love those BR Starfighters.
If you like RPGs, you might try to get a copy of the old Space Opera, which kitbashed a *lot* of different universes together.
So, any comments?

Tigara · Apr 10, 2002

But these guns are also powerful. And long ranged. I bet it has the same power output as at least a type VIII phaser. And there are more of them. Your analogies are neat but they don't fist. An Omega is not blind. Nor is it out ranged.

**DONOTDELETE** · Apr 10, 2002

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Originally posted by Lennier:
Interesting.

Lasers should work pretty darn well from a lightsecond distance. That's about as far as the Moon, is it not? Accelerate some particles with standing mass, and you will achieve lesser speeds, but high speeds nevertheless. Neutrons accelerated to 2/3 C would be only a third slower.<hr></blockquote>

True enough. And if you can manage the building feat, a laser could be made with an aperture of a kilometer, in close orbit around the sun, powered by direct sunlight, with a much longer range, maybe measurable in AU( which would be good for a photon sail). But most figures I have seen for lasers in sf combat have ranges in the 4-6 figure range in kilometers, with 100,000 km the usual top end, only 1/3 of a light second.
Fictional particle beams are usually even shorter-range. This is why the phaser, a so-called "rapid-nadion beam", with a range of lightminutes, and a speed greater than C would be an insuperable advantage, assuming the "basis" for the technology is accepted. Yes, it's a "stats first, rationalisation later" device, but then, so are PPGs.
So, what about other applications of mass-drivers than just dropping rocks on a target? Got any ideas or points of discussion, Lennier? Anybody else?

**DONOTDELETE** · Apr 10, 2002

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Originally posted by Tigara:
But these guns are also powerful. And long ranged. I bet it has the same power output as at least a type VIII phaser. And there are more of them. Your analogies are neat but they don't fist. An Omega is not blind. Nor is it out ranged.<hr></blockquote>
What's the canonical range, then for the Omega's main batteries? I only recall them being used at what appeared close range. Also, given treknology, lasers are easily decohered, rendering them impotent.
Besides, antimatter, which B5 does not have, is my favorite weapon. It trumps a lot of weapons and power sources.
In a game a friend was running, he nade the mistake of allowing a player to be a Kryptonian Starfleet officer. Of course said Kryptonian went power-mad, conquered the galaxy, destroyed all Kryptonite, and generally ran amok, because my friend was an inexperienced gamemaster, unable to control the munchkin. So I joined the game as an ambassador from a newly discovered race, and ended the game by presenting Krypto-menace with a case of wine. Unfortunately for him, the wine, while really wine, was made of anti-particles, and uncorking the bottles caused the magnetic containment field to drop. To repeat Lennier, as the almight Ivanova said, Boom. No planet, no tin-plated dictator, no more out-of-control-game.

Tigara · Apr 10, 2002

Well, we also see trek ships just as close. The ships in "Yesterdays Enterprise" were passing each other.

admiraldave · Apr 11, 2002

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Originally posted by Lennier:
Unable to address the matter of transporters physically, I must approach it logically. I would ask a question. If one can beam a bomb, why are bombs not beamed? There is obviously something stopping it, or this would be the main weapon of Star Trek ships. You would not have to beam it aboard. Just beam it close enough into space. The rest should go just like the allmighty Ivanova said. Boom.

Why doesn't every battle in Star Trek end with such a transporter-induced boom? I fail to recall any explanation, only that this does not happen. Why? I would say that something stops it. Perhaps range. Perhaps countermeasures. Or perhaps ships start shooting from 10 times beyond transporter range. The question is similar to the one about jump engines. Why not tear the enemy ship apart? Because by the time you get close enough, somebody would have made a thousand nice holes into your ship.<hr></blockquote>

Transporting bombs has been done. A photon torpedo was beamed aboard a Borg vessel in Dark Frontier. As for why the tactic is not more common, it's due to a few things:

1. The transporting ship has to lower it's shields to transport the bomb, leaving it vulnerable.

2. There are counters for transporters. The Cardassians are known to use transporter supression fields. Picard and company deployed them in Insurrection. And one can't beam through shields, most of the time. Beaming just outside of the volume affected by such a field means the bomb still has to get through the shields. It's better then, to fire the bomb out of your torpedo launchers which doesn't leave you ship vulnerable.

3. Weapon range is greater than transporter range.

4. Bad writing. /ubbthreads/images/icons/grin.gif

However, since B5 ships are not shielded, one could assume that they have no real counter to transporters. Makes sense, since B5 has no transporters to counter!

Admiral Dave

**DONOTDELETE** · Apr 11, 2002

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Originally posted by Lennier:
Quite interesting.

It might allow better landing modules for spacecraft, and perhaps for quicker atmospheric flight. But using plasma weapons at long range within atmosphere... is dubious in my mind. Yes. They would be fast. But light is faster, requires no magnetic containment field and has no standing mass. Hence in the field of destructive technology, laser would come before plasma.<hr></blockquote>

You have to remember that this was only an experimental prototype, the first laser could only vaporize a 1/16th of an inch of steel per pulse. Speed of 3% the speed of light is a limitation of current technology not of physics. As technology improves so would its velocity, eventually it could be pushed up 99% the speed of light. Lasers also have there weaknesses as well.

1. When watching real life video of lasers shooting down missles it always takes a couple of seconds for the beam to destroy the target, you see a hot spot appear then a second later it explodes. Of course advances in technology will up the power output and therefore lower the time it takes to destroy its target. But technology can also protect a missle too. Thermal protective armour like the spaceshuttle thermal tiles could be be used to reduce the effectiveness of lasers.

2. Lasers are heavily impaired by bad weather; heavy fog, rain, snow, and sandstorms would render a laser usless. A plasma bolt on the other hand would not be affected at all by fog or clouds. Because a plasma bolt has mass and is traveling at hypersonic speeds it builds up a preasure wave in front of it. Because of this, it would not be as badly effected by snow and sandstorms, I am not sure how this would apply to rain. I suspect at least mederate impairment to being as severly impaired as a laser.

3. Because a plasma bolt has mass when it hits a target it hits it with kenetick energy as well as thermal . Even at 3% the speed of light it will hit with an incredible explosive force. At 99% the speed of light you have two advantages over laser. At that speed the plasma would be experienceing time dilation effects. This would slowdown the rate of cooling and expansion thus dramaticly increasing its range. The second effect would occure on impact and is explained with the following question "What happens when you apply massive amounts of pressuer and heat to plasma?".

**DONOTDELETE** · Apr 11, 2002

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Originally posted by Xzyl:
As technology improves so would its velocity, eventually it could be pushed up 99% the speed of light.<hr></blockquote>Particles with standing mass cannot be accelerated to a full C, or speeds close to that. For that matter, speeds of 2/3 C would be a good achievement for stand-alone particles and speeds of 1/5 C very good for objects. Plasma contained in a magnetic field is definitely an object, and cannot be accelerated to near-light speeds. The reason? Quick acceleration would break the containment field, resulting in the "energy mine" losing integrity. It would diffuse before reaching its target. You must remember that plasma is ionized gas, and wants to dffuse. If you let it, it will.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>But technology can also protect a missle too. Thermal protective armour like the spaceshuttle thermal tiles could be be used to reduce the effectiveness of lasers.<hr></blockquote>Thermal protective armour would be of little use. It might even increase the efficiency of a laser by preventing conductive heat transfer, thus increasing temperature at the contact point. The effect of a laser is *not* based on overall heating, but burning a hole or cutting. Now reflective/refractive armour, that would be another matter. It would force the opposing party to have lasers of different wavelengths to punch through.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Lasers are heavily impaired by bad weather; heavy fog, rain, snow, and sandstorms would render a laser usless.<hr></blockquote>Lasers come in different wavelengths. From well below infrared to well beyond ultraviolet.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>At 99% the speed of light you have two advantages over laser. At that speed the plasma would be experienceing time dilation effects. This would slowdown the rate of cooling and expansion thus dramaticly increasing its range.<hr></blockquote>Assuming that you can accelerate it to such speeds, this would be of great help. The same effect would apply to particle beams, allowing you to use particles with a short lifetime.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The second effect would occure on impact and is explained with the following question "What happens when you apply massive amounts of pressuer and heat to plasma?".<hr></blockquote>What happens? Interesting things will happen. Some have speculated that it might induce fusion reactions, delivering additional damage to most forms of armor. The problem would be: armor with a high energy absorption capacity (Shaodw vessels for example) would cool it down before a significant amount of fusion can happen. With electrically neutral antiparticle beams, that danger would not exist. Which is the reason why I would consider them pretty close to the ultimate weapon.

Mergy Sci-fi races??

Beyond the rim

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

Beyond the rim

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

Beyond the rim

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

Beyond the rim

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

Beyond the rim

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

Beyond the rim

Regular

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

Share this page

We value your privacy

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE