Jeff Hopper
Mongoose
OK, here's my question. Is there any reason why the spinal mount railgun from MgT TCS cannot be used as a launch tube for 20 ton fighters when it is not being used as a weapon?
Of Railguns And Launch Tubes
- Thread starter Jeff Hopper
- Start date
In the pure Dton vs. Dton theory, the answer would be no. Since a rail gun spinal mount uses 20Dton ammunition, in theory you could have up to a 20 Dton small craft go out the same tube.
But I would basically say no. First off we don't know the dimensions of the spinal mount round. It could be longer rather than thicker. Second, most standard space fighters have different dimensions than what a round probably will have (not to mention protuberances such as wings and ordnance mounting brackets, which the round has no need of).
Now, if you really, really wanted to get around this, you could, again in theory, design a single person fighter that mimics the size and shape of a ortillery round. The one remaining problem is that your pilot will most likely be paste after the thing accelerates him out of the shoot, assuming you don't let him fly out of it under is own power. Remember that Traveller doesn't have inertial dampeners as part of the antigrav for decking. So that pilot would take all those G's
But I would basically say no. First off we don't know the dimensions of the spinal mount round. It could be longer rather than thicker. Second, most standard space fighters have different dimensions than what a round probably will have (not to mention protuberances such as wings and ordnance mounting brackets, which the round has no need of).
Now, if you really, really wanted to get around this, you could, again in theory, design a single person fighter that mimics the size and shape of a ortillery round. The one remaining problem is that your pilot will most likely be paste after the thing accelerates him out of the shoot, assuming you don't let him fly out of it under is own power. Remember that Traveller doesn't have inertial dampeners as part of the antigrav for decking. So that pilot would take all those G's
phavoc said:
COMPLETELY incorrect. Otherwise you wouldn't have manned craft capable of (and doing) multiple G's of acceleration over prolonged time periods. Like interplanetary craft, fighters or ships heading out to the 100D line. :lol:
That being said. The G's experienced by a Railgun round would be in the thousands. A ship couldn't compensate for that.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
I considered this utilization when I proposed using launch tubes as short range railguns and ortillery.
Muzzle velocity was an issue, especially for a human crew, since technical details are rather vague.
Recovery seems unlikely. Launching would depend on the loading and handling facilities, presumably located at the friendly end of the barrel, though dropping in the ordnance like a mortar shell does appeal to my sense of humour.
As I pointed out several times, launch tubes are really an abstraction, since differing smallcraft configurations would ensure that they'd really have to be fatter than illustrated. I'm going to bet that's not the case with the railgun spinal mount.
Does the railgun impart a spin on the bullets? Can't imagine your typical human crew would be happy with that.
At best, you'd still only launch one vessel per turn.
Though it's possible that you can vary the power that's outputted, to accommodate a slower acceleration.
Muzzle velocity was an issue, especially for a human crew, since technical details are rather vague.
Recovery seems unlikely. Launching would depend on the loading and handling facilities, presumably located at the friendly end of the barrel, though dropping in the ordnance like a mortar shell does appeal to my sense of humour.
As I pointed out several times, launch tubes are really an abstraction, since differing smallcraft configurations would ensure that they'd really have to be fatter than illustrated. I'm going to bet that's not the case with the railgun spinal mount.
Does the railgun impart a spin on the bullets? Can't imagine your typical human crew would be happy with that.
At best, you'd still only launch one vessel per turn.
Though it's possible that you can vary the power that's outputted, to accommodate a slower acceleration.
CosmicGamer
Mongoose
How about something less than 20 tons inside a 20 ton shell/casing that pops apart after being fired? Maybe inside the 20 ton casing is a bunch of inertial compensating material/tech surrounding a 10 ton craft.
How do you intend to feed the launched craft into the railgun? I think it would be difficult to cram all the infrastructure required by the spinal weapon itself, its ammunition magazine and facilities for prepping small craft for launch into the rear end of the gun. Especially because the gun runs the length of the entire ship.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
From the prices on smallcraft hulls, I'd say inertial compensator were integral. Since it would appear that it's mazed out at six gee, can't see how external packing would increase that.
It's implied that the bullet is standard sized, so the variable would be the tonnage taken up by the gun. Which means that the spinal mount doesn't necessarily extend the entire ;length of the ship, though structural support for it may.
In theory, you could place the hangar at the friendly end, and use it's launch facility for recovery.
It's implied that the bullet is standard sized, so the variable would be the tonnage taken up by the gun. Which means that the spinal mount doesn't necessarily extend the entire ;length of the ship, though structural support for it may.
In theory, you could place the hangar at the friendly end, and use it's launch facility for recovery.
F33D said:
Ah, so you are saying there is no defined rule and it's what you think the rule should be.
Got it.
I haven't missed anything. I stated what I stated because I am aware of no published rule that says the antigravity field also acts as an intertial dampener. I'm aware that if you are pushing 6g's there must be something going on, or else the human body couldn't take it. But did you think that because the gravity field is being manipulated it's not a true inertial compensator? If you can manipulate gravity you are sidestepping the effect of the acceleration.
By dictionary definition an inertial dampener absorbs or redirects acceleration forces. Antigravity fields potentially replace or block (since its pseudoscience you can make anything up that you want) the effects of acceleration with a new field centered around the emitters (in this instance it's deck plating). It's an area that's never really been explained too much - how far the fields go, are the directional or omni-directional, is there a gradient at the furthest reaches where it drops off, etc, etc.
If you want to constructively contribute to the conversation that's great, but thus far that hasn't been the case.
Reynard said:
It's the standard, but not the only. High Guard provides rules for reaction drives, which are perfectly useable on crewed vessels. Traveller often glosses over important details in the setting, but it's prett clear to me the game assumes some sort of inertial or acceleration damping. Certainly it has characters being thrown around at 6G casually enough that personally I find it hard to see what else could be going on, but that's just my opinion.
Simon Hibbs
Reynard
Emperor Mongoose
For over three decades, artificial gravity and inertial compensators have been clearly part of Traveller whether in passing text or the fact no one floats around ala 2001 or all the graphics show a gravity architecture or in actual construction rules. I do remember a long time ago there was mention that part of the development of each maneuver drive was associated inertial compensators. Might explain the Thrust 6 limitation. The ICs are meant to keep you in place in hard maneuvers at your maximum thrust.
Back to the topic, quite possibly, a rail gun weapon is purpose built to achieve the top acceleration for a projectile. Anything else make the unit more expensive. A railgun projectile is also much smaller than even a ten ton craft. Making a launch tube that also fires projectiles would be a massive, and very expensive, complication plus a logistic nightmare in combat. What would have priority?
Same class, very different species.
Back to the topic, quite possibly, a rail gun weapon is purpose built to achieve the top acceleration for a projectile. Anything else make the unit more expensive. A railgun projectile is also much smaller than even a ten ton craft. Making a launch tube that also fires projectiles would be a massive, and very expensive, complication plus a logistic nightmare in combat. What would have priority?
Same class, very different species.
