[High Guard] Preview/Date?

[waylandson]

Ah, that would be the holy Grailgun. :lol:

Ahhh, just use a coil and slap on a few rails. :wink: It would be fun to watch the coil flying with the projectile.

Or maybe you can have the rails inside the coil ... yea ... that's the ticket.

Whatever the way they work or use, they're still cool and extemely destructive.

As for the new rules on small craft and drones, hopefully they will plug some of the holes in the Traveller Rules regarding small craft, especially as they allow small craft to carry non starship "scale" weapons.

 

[qstor]

Those robot fighter drones will be handy to use for the K'Kree drones.

Mike

 

[Gruffty the Hiver]

Best get rowing then Matt

Are we going to be seeing a Hiver on the Open Day?

I'll be there

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

According to the table in the preview, small craft with a Class A-F power plant can not mount any energy based weapons. The Light Fighter design included in the Main Rulebook has a Pulse Laser Weapon in a single fixed mount and a Class A power plant. According to the preview of High Guard, the Light Fighter design would be invalid, unless Pulse Lasers are special case energy weapons.

This is a rule I will either ignore or, at best, rework. For me, light (10-ton) fighters ought to be able to mount one laser in addition to at least one missile rack, when including reloads for said missile launcher. IMTU light fighters may well be slaughtered by that 20,000 ton dreadnought*, but they will strip sensors, hole armor and destroy weaponry carried by the armor, softening it up for the 6 or so 2,000 ton destoyers.

*Also IMTU, 20,000 tons is the upper economics-to-power-ratio size for warships, while 100,000 tons is the upper limit for merchants

You can have a 10-ton fighter with an energy weapon. You just have to put a big honkin' power plant on it thing to make it work. Honkin' is a technical term BTW... :wink:

 

[Dark Lord Skippy]

Personally, I love the Mister Roberts themed mishap. Thats hilarious.

I'm assuming its the potted plant, yes? I'm not familiar with Mr. Roberts.

Quite so.... and I highly recommend the film (or the play if you have a good playhouse in your town thats doing it).

 

[Myrm]

You can have a 10-ton fighter with an energy weapon. You just have to put a big honkin' power plant on it thing to make it work. Honkin' is a technical term BTW... :wink:

...and an occult one...anyone insane enough for the Big Honkin' Truck?

 

[towerwarlock]

how about wrapping a fighter arrond a railgun to really annoy the @#!!#& out of the big ships? That would really make the fighters a nasty surprise.

 

[dmccoy1693]

how about wrapping a fighter arrond a railgun to really annoy the @#!!#& out of the big ships? That would really make the fighters a nasty surprise.

I'd love to see the recoil on that thing. :twisted: It'd be like something out of a bugs bunny cartoon. During college, my friends and I designed a coil cannon for a naval destroyer that could sink the firing ship from the recoil alone.

 

[Deniable]

how about wrapping a fighter arrond a railgun to really annoy the @#!!#& out of the big ships? That would really make the fighters a nasty surprise.

I'd love to see the recoil on that thing. :twisted: It'd be like something out of a bugs bunny cartoon. During college, my friends and I designed a coil cannon for a naval destroyer that could sink the firing ship from the recoil alone.

It would be a good way to slow down unless you were coming in too fast for landing. Hang on, isn't MGT still in the gauss/coil/rail = no recoil camp?

 

[dmccoy1693]

Hang on, isn't MGT still in the gauss/coil/rail = no recoil camp?

I think so, but I"m not doing that for my game.

 

[Paladin]

how about wrapping a fighter arrond a railgun to really annoy the @#!!#& out of the big ships? That would really make the fighters a nasty surprise.

I'd love to see the recoil on that thing. :twisted: It'd be like something out of a bugs bunny cartoon. During college, my friends and I designed a coil cannon for a naval destroyer that could sink the firing ship from the recoil alone.

It would be a good way to slow down unless you were coming in too fast for landing. Hang on, isn't MGT still in the gauss/coil/rail = no recoil camp?

"no recoil" isn't literally "no" recoil, but minimally felt recoil; either through a method of transfer/dampeners. In my opinion, we can't comprehend/explain technology of the future that seems impossible today. All the physics/math on inertia/opposite reactions in the world are useless if you have technology that compensates or solves the issue. Size/scale of the weapons/ammo is also relevant.

 

[towerwarlock]

Most every edition of Traveller I have seen says that rail guns and Gauss Weapons have no recoil. And if you think about it, it would not. Simply because unlike firearms, missles, and such there is no explosion or use of propellant to create a recoil. And this includes compressed air weapons, because they DO have a recoil. The recoil is created by the detonation of the propellant. So a railgun would be ideal for fighters. Remember Plasma Weapons and Fusion weapons do have a recoil because the actually are creating an explosion and projecting it towards the target.

 

[Vile]

Explosions have nothing to do with recoil. Well, they do, but not because they are explosions. Recoil is an opposite and equal reaction to the projectile. Rail guns and gauss guns would have recoil if they existed. Ask the second law of thermodynamics.

Now, if you were to introduce a second handwave (over and above the power requirements) and said that recoil was gravitically compensated or some such, fine. But there's nothing in there about explosions, unless you also re-write basic laws of physics for your setting.

 

[towerwarlock]

Sorry but the projectile is not the cause of recoil. It is the explosive detonation of the propellant that causes the recoil. And no I am not crazy. I actually stayed awake in science and physics classes and pulled in A's in the classes. (Which, given the damn monotone voice the teachers insisted on using is actually amazing in of itself.) Also thermodynamics has nothing to do with rail guns and gauss weapons. Both weapons are pulled along by the magnetic force of either the rails or the coils. So from the firer's point of view there is no recoil. However if you are inside that projectile, well ICK!

 

[Delerium]

Explosions have nothing to do with recoil. Well, they do, but not because they are explosions. Recoil is an opposite and equal reaction to the projectile. Rail guns and gauss guns would have recoil if they existed. Ask the second law of thermodynamics.

Now, if you were to introduce a second handwave (over and above the power requirements) and said that recoil was gravitically compensated or some such, fine. But there's nothing in there about explosions, unless you also re-write basic laws of physics for your setting.

I am no physicist so all this a bit confusing...

But how does the 2nd law of thermodynamics come into play here?

How would a magnetically launched projectile would have any noticeable projectile on a large mass (eg. man, ship) launching it.
Or are you just talking about some minute level of force here?

Enlightment me.

 

[Jame Rowe]

Semi-off-topic, I've started assuming that the Power Plant has enough fuel within its tonnage to support use for 200 years, which should just be long enough to power the ship over its useful lifetime. You still need fuel for the manuever drives and hyperdrives, calculated by the standard power plant formula.

 

[EDG]

"no recoil" isn't literally "no" recoil, but minimally felt recoil; either through a method of transfer/dampeners. In my opinion, we can't comprehend/explain technology of the future that seems impossible today. All the physics/math on inertia/opposite reactions in the world are useless if you have technology that compensates or solves the issue. Size/scale of the weapons/ammo is also relevant.

The key phrase is "if you have technology that compensates or solves the issue". Personally I hate the assumption that physics problems will be magically solved in the future - the physics is still there, and a given problem has been solved then there darn well should be a description of how it's solved (even if it's technobabble - so long as it is at least consistent with the setting).

(It's the main reason why I balk at Ancients destroying and moving planets. They need enormous amounts of energy to do that, so where do they get it from? Maybe they used near-c rocks to destroy planets (which raise their own issues), but moving them around? Not so easy. Even if they use portals to do it, what's the energy source that can create a portal thousands of km across that shunts a planet into a pocket universe? This is the sort of thing that annoys me - the Ancients still were subject to the laws of physics, just like everyone else, and they don't get a magic "get out of jail free" card)

Anyway. I found this on wiki page for railguns:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun

The rails and projectiles must be built from strong conductive materials; the rails need to survive the violence of an accelerating projectile, and heating due to the large currents and friction involved. The recoil force exerted on the rails is equal and opposite to the force propelling the projectile. The seat of the recoil force is still debated. The traditional equations predict that the recoil force acts on the breech of the railgun. Another school of thought invokes Ampère's force law and asserts that it acts along the length of the rails (which is their strongest axis)[3]. The rails also repel themselves via a sideways force caused by the rails being pushed by the magnetic field, just as the projectile is. The rails need to survive this without bending, and must be very securely mounted.

So it sounds like the recoil force is there, but it has to be absorbed by the weapon. And if it doesn't get fully absorbed, then it sounds like the railgun would literally tear itself apart.


As for coilguns, there's this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bfoBlKerN0

Again, the recoil can probably be absorbed, but the coil will definitely want to move backwards as it pushes the projectile forwards.

 

[EDG]

But how does the 2nd law of thermodynamics come into play here?

I think Vile actually means Newton's 3rd law of motion - the one that says "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%E2%80%99s_laws_of_motion

 

[klingsor]

Recoil is momentum, if you fire a projectile you are going to have equal momentum for the projectile and the launcher whether it is a gun or mass driver. However for starships unless you are firing a projectile at realativistc velocities or really, really big projectiles that are a significant percentage of the launching ships mass this is not really a problem.

If you are still worried about recoil there are ways round it:

Gravetic compensators - a little bit of hand waving but it is a mature technology in the OTU. Just bump up the mass and the power requirements a little. Very possibly this is why Gauss guns in the OTU are effectively recoilless.

Counter weight. Stolen from the Great War vintage Davis gun, a very early recoilless gun for aircraft that fired a round out one end and a counterweight of grease and lead shot out the other. Wasteful of energy and mass and downright dangerous but feasible, just not a terribly good idea. Space on the other hand is mostly empty so maybe not that dangerous after all.

 

[EDG]

Recoil is momentum, if you fire a projectile you are going to have equal momentum for the projectile and the launcher whether it is a gun or mass driver. However for starships unless you are firing a projectile at realativistc velocities or really, really big projectiles that are a significant percentage of the launching ships mass this is not really a problem.

Not for the ship itself perhaps, but the gun would still need to recoil itself within the ship.

Gravetic compensators - a little bit of hand waving but it is a mature technology in the OTU. Just bump up the mass and the power requirements a little. Very possibly this is why Gauss guns in the OTU are effectively recoilless.

Inertial compensators might work, by reducing the mass of the projectile. But to do that presumably they'd have to be built into each projectile, which would make it too expensive to fire!