From: pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk)
Subject: Re: Weapons systems?
Keywords: high-G space weapons
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 12:06:40 EST

In article <u894793.722356188@bruny> u894793@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au 
(T. Little) writes:

>pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk) writes:
>
>>A limit on the energy gradient of an accelerator interests me because
>>it would bound the capability of ships of a given size.  We could say
>>that a ship of length L would have thus and such max delta-V / mass
>>efficiency.  For one thing, this would necessitate different roles
>>for craft of different sizes.  If we make other assumptions about
>>materials technology: for example -- that we will never make something
>>with more tensile strength than a molecular bond -- then we get another
>>limit on the rate of turn for craft of length L.  

I should say: 'rate of spin.'

[deleted]
>>enough distance and accelerating ability, the ship can make sure that
>>you will never know where it is precisely enough to hit.  
>
>Err, this would require some *awesome* accelerations for practical
>distances - if you have 100G accelation for a 10m craft, you need to be
>at least 30 000 km away.

This is why I was talking about high G and high Specific Impulse.  I
want to consider space combat with ships capable of 100's, even 1000 G.
I think that this is feasible.  In any case, it's just neat to think
about something so incredbily agile.  

>>If we place speed limits on our weapons much lower than light, then
>
>... you need a good reason.  I can think of quite a few long-range
>NAFAL weapons that are fairly efficient, so there must be some reason
>why they won't work.

Yes.  If your target is accelerating at 100's of G and is over a light-ms
away, you're going to have some really tough focusing problems.  

What are NAFAL weapons?  Does this stand for Not As Fast As Light?  This
seems to contradict what you are saying.

[deleted]
>Why this value?  It sounds about right for molecular disruption, but in
>vacuum, this won't apply...[deleted]

If you are only considering weapons capable of high-G, then molecular
disruption is not a problem.  But when you start trying to get stealthy,
then mucking around with plasmas is going to get you into thermodynamic
trouble.  (IR signatures.  I just think it's a BAD idea for warships to
be incandescent.)

[deleted]
>(This depends upon what exactly you mean by 'solid state' drives.  Do you
>allow ion drives, for example?  What about chemical rockets?  Lasers?)

Anything made out of normal matter.  No plasmas.  Nothing funky.  So yes,
lasers, ion drives, chemical rockets.  I didn't mean solid as phase state,
EXACTLY.

When I talk about things being made from normal matter, I am thinking
about building ships with no albedo.  (Is that right, or is it the
other way around?)  Or at least practically none?  The laws of
thermodynamics -- informally stated -- are: You can't win.  You can't
break even.  You can't get out of the game.  However, nothing says that
you can't try to get as close to breaking even as possible.

What if you built an entire warship around this principle?  You could
cool the entire thing down to a few degrees K.  If everything is 
horrendously efficient, then you stay cool for a while.  No radiators
shouting, 'Hey You!  Missle!  I'm over here!'  

So, is this thermodynamically legal?  Orbital systems change vast energies
between potential and kinetic form.  That's basically what a warship does.  
Of course, you run into problems with a crew:)  And superconducting computers
have their own problems.  Of course, we KNOW how practical and easy to
implement all this would be!   :)

	--Peter Kwangjun Suk

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science