-Deleted-
- Thread starter Solomani666
- Start date
Solomani666
Mongoose
deleted
The only detailed stats I have for a Traveller ship to ship missile are from
GURPS Traveller. There the TL 12 version has a mass of 292.75 lbs, ac-
celerates with 10 G for up to one hour and carries a 250 mm HEAT war-
head - and therefore is very obviously designed to impact.
Since the author, Loren Wiseman, is a member of the original Traveller
crew and has been writing Traveller material since the game was desig-
ned, I think his idea of the missile is close to the original concept of ship
to ship missiles in Traveller.
GURPS Traveller. There the TL 12 version has a mass of 292.75 lbs, ac-
celerates with 10 G for up to one hour and carries a 250 mm HEAT war-
head - and therefore is very obviously designed to impact.
Since the author, Loren Wiseman, is a member of the original Traveller
crew and has been writing Traveller material since the game was desig-
ned, I think his idea of the missile is close to the original concept of ship
to ship missiles in Traveller.
Solomani666
Mongoose
deleted
Aha. HEAT warhead, thank you very much 
Now I know, and knowing is half the battle
As for the conventional torpedo nuke:
1) It would be a damn big explosion against the hull of the ship. I doubt it would be unable to penetrate through ramming. If it did? good-bye enormous lump of ship.
2)... how big... I mean the size of a torpedo, if it was against the hull, then as I said, just big damage. If it got inside somehow (as it appears is intended), then I think the ship is dead. you could put a big enough nuke in that thing to just kill the ship dead, even a 1,000,000 ton ship (which isn't actually that big.)
3) De-activate it. It would just be a ramming attack. that's what a nuclear damper does, make the nuke completely useless (or much less explodey).
Now I know, and knowing is half the battle
As for the conventional torpedo nuke:
1) It would be a damn big explosion against the hull of the ship. I doubt it would be unable to penetrate through ramming. If it did? good-bye enormous lump of ship.
2)... how big... I mean the size of a torpedo, if it was against the hull, then as I said, just big damage. If it got inside somehow (as it appears is intended), then I think the ship is dead. you could put a big enough nuke in that thing to just kill the ship dead, even a 1,000,000 ton ship (which isn't actually that big.)
3) De-activate it. It would just be a ramming attack. that's what a nuclear damper does, make the nuke completely useless (or much less explodey).
far-trader
Mongoose
Solomani666 said:
And that right there is one of the serious problems with your deletion and reposting of the same questions in a different thread. One you don't seem to understand. Those questions were all answered, at least once, in one or more of the previous deleted and or otherwise mutilated threads. Or maybe it was this one. I for one don't care to hunt up the answers or repost my thoughts. I doubt others are much more liklely to. I suggest you go look through the threads and reread them for the answers.
Solomani666
Mongoose
DFW
I think it is very rude of you to constantly hijack my threads and change their topic. We all get that you are a smart guy, but you don't have to constantly try to prove it all the time.
You have an abundance of knowledge we can all benefit from, so please try to keep at least your first few comments on topic.
Picking out errors in the origional post does not qualify as an ontopic post unless you also contribute answers to the questions asked.
I appreciate your cooperation.
I think it is very rude of you to constantly hijack my threads and change their topic. We all get that you are a smart guy, but you don't have to constantly try to prove it all the time.
You have an abundance of knowledge we can all benefit from, so please try to keep at least your first few comments on topic.
Picking out errors in the origional post does not qualify as an ontopic post unless you also contribute answers to the questions asked.
I appreciate your cooperation.
Solomani666
Mongoose
barnest2 said:
Shutting up and leaving off...
far-trader
Mongoose
barnest2 said:
Yeah, this sucks big time <sigh>
I think the fireball of a nuclear explosion on the hull of the ship would
continue to move at its previous speed and in its previous direction. In
this case it would first vaporize the hull and then move into the ship for
quite some distance, vaporizing a "channel" into the ship and complete-
ly destroying everything in its path, for at least several seconds at high
speed. A small ship would be gutted completely by this, a big ship would
lose a significant part of its interior (depending on where the nuke hit)
and almost certainly much if not all of its structural integrity.
So, even if the ship would survive the initial explosion, and the crew of
the ship would survive the shock transferred by the ship's structure and
the radiation, the nuke would still be likely to turn the ship into a wreck.
Edit.:
Well, since I cannot prevent his puerile behaviour and bad manners, he
just made it onto my ignore list. No more need to delete his posts, I will
no longer read them anyway.
continue to move at its previous speed and in its previous direction. In
this case it would first vaporize the hull and then move into the ship for
quite some distance, vaporizing a "channel" into the ship and complete-
ly destroying everything in its path, for at least several seconds at high
speed. A small ship would be gutted completely by this, a big ship would
lose a significant part of its interior (depending on where the nuke hit)
and almost certainly much if not all of its structural integrity.
So, even if the ship would survive the initial explosion, and the crew of
the ship would survive the shock transferred by the ship's structure and
the radiation, the nuke would still be likely to turn the ship into a wreck.
Edit.:
Well, since I cannot prevent his puerile behaviour and bad manners, he
just made it onto my ignore list. No more need to delete his posts, I will
no longer read them anyway.
Solomani666 said:
I was seriously trying to answer. But, when I see a possible rules premise flaw in the question I needed to clarify to ensure I was answering to the correct Hardware. If we were talking past each other about two different items the answer may end up being totally useless to what you were looking for. Maybe, it comes from raising kids (no intention of saying you're a kid) and one would ask if fish really gives people rides at Marine World. I would point out that they don't train fish, "were you talking about whales?" Bad example but, it serves to illustrate the thought process hopefully.
Now, IF you read my posts, I believe that I've answered or in the case of fartrader's conclusions, helped develop what the tech most likely is so that you and others can extend to your games and extrapolate many answers for different situations.
Dave Chase
Mongoose
Well, I have to concur with the majority of posters here about you, Mr Solomani666.
Your attitude about how you own the threads you started, which gives you the right to delete them is more annoying that some of the tit for tat that goes on in general on most forums.
I will tell you this, if is see one more of the attitude postings toward anyone like you have publicly done with DFW, I will join the petition to see if you can be banned.
Several times I have been reading and following along some of your threads, and just when I get some good interesting ideas from it, you go and delete your posts. And on top of that you delete the title, which makes it very hard to find those remaining posts that I would like to refer to since there are several deleted threads, that I have to search through now to find them which thread the posts were in.
Your 'its mine and only those I want can play' attitude over public threads, is a major turn off and though I am not to the point of using ignore, I am to the point where I hesitate to even read any of your threads now.
Because why bother, you will most likely just delete it.
And don't blame those who post on your thread. If you have a problem with them, report them. It does work, as there are several individuals who are banned from this forum.
Plus check my sig.
Dave Chase
Your attitude about how you own the threads you started, which gives you the right to delete them is more annoying that some of the tit for tat that goes on in general on most forums.
I will tell you this, if is see one more of the attitude postings toward anyone like you have publicly done with DFW, I will join the petition to see if you can be banned.
Several times I have been reading and following along some of your threads, and just when I get some good interesting ideas from it, you go and delete your posts. And on top of that you delete the title, which makes it very hard to find those remaining posts that I would like to refer to since there are several deleted threads, that I have to search through now to find them which thread the posts were in.
Your 'its mine and only those I want can play' attitude over public threads, is a major turn off and though I am not to the point of using ignore, I am to the point where I hesitate to even read any of your threads now.
Because why bother, you will most likely just delete it.
And don't blame those who post on your thread. If you have a problem with them, report them. It does work, as there are several individuals who are banned from this forum.
Plus check my sig.
Dave Chase
Egil Skallagrimsson
Mongoose
Solomani666 said:
Solly, you forgot to delete this one.
Careless, the more you forget to delete, the more sense the thread will make.
Egil
