Re: Vacuum

Jim Whitehead wrote:

> C. Downes-Ward wrote:
> 
> >I did some thinking on this some time ago, based on the way that 
> > atmosphere affects wepaons in Striker and Striker II, the best I
could 
> >come up with was treating all hits from projectile weapons as if
they 
> >happened at close range
> 
> one range band closer would be more accurate.

Agreed, but for somewhat different reasons:

> Gravity has as much 
> affect on a modern projectile as air resistance, maybe even more. 

Well... no, not really. Air resistance causes all sorts of nasty
problems with projectile stability and deformation, whereas gravity is
a lot more predictable. It does limit the maximum range of the weapon
somewhat of course, but the main range limitations for direct-fire
weapons are imposed by lines of sight and targetting equipment
capabilities which aren't affected by the lack of air.

GMS, buzzbombs etc would work, provided you use weapons specifically
designed to work in vacuum - you couldn't use standard atmospheric
weapons straight off. I missed the initial post in this thread, so I
don't know if this was covered.

> DFFGs as the PSB in DSII goes atmosphere dosen't affect range, 
> magnetic containment does.

But air resistance means that the magnetic containment will be "worn
out" much faster than in vacuum, which would reduce the range quite
drastically.

> *As a sidenote I've been soing some research on the Railgun [snip]
>     Oerjan Ohlson I know that you use the term railgun to mean 
> something like DSII's HKP  [snip]

I, the US Army weapon researchers and the rest of the weapon research
community... Since we're talking future weapons here, I suspect we
outvote you, 'cause our weapon will come in use a couple of centuries
before yours <g>

>     In any case they are a moot point as far as modern military
> practicality. The energy requirements are too great and the recharge 
> times are unacceptable in combat. Maybe in 200 years the technology 
> will be there to make them viable.

What you mean with a "railgun" most likely isn't viable, but I'm quite
confident that I'll live to see the weapons I and my collegues refer to
as railguns used as MBT main armaments. Barring unfortunate accidents
on the firing range, of course :-/

> > CFE and HMT powerplants are non-starters too.
> 
> CFE and HMT engines can be space profed easily enough. All it
requires > is a LOX tank (1 capacity or 1 x class capacity?, points =
20 x class? 
> This is a suggestion I just came up with 30 seconds ago, it needs
some > analysis and feedback. Maybe no capacity requirement?)

HMT might work - if they're fuel-cells rather than turbines, anyway
(the PSB description looks a bit muddled here :-/ ), since at least the
fuel cell tech used today free oxygen rather than use it up. NASA's
shuttles don't bring any extra oxygen for their fuel cells AFAIK :-/

CFE... well, if you run your combustion engines on gunpowder
(preferrably liquid) they would work without any oxygen, but they
probably wouldn't survive it for very long unless they were
specifically designed for such a fuel, but OTOH you'd need
special-designed engines even if you brought LOX - a lot of extra tubes
for the oxygen, radiators which work in vacuum, etc.

> >How much does it cost to vaccum proof a turret ring? or in other
words > >I suspect that vehicles will cost more.
> 
> Turret rings will probably already be space profed. The treatment of
> biochemical weapons in DSII assumes that all AFVs are airtight. 

Quite the contrary. Good air filters and an over-pressurized crew
compartment is much safer (as well as much cheaper) against biochem
weapons than complete airtightness, since even a minor crack will spoil
the airtightness whereas the over-pressure will stop any gas from
getting in. If you get a big crack in the crew compartment wall, the
crew is probably dead anyway...

Regards,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry