Re: Real Space Combat Help:

> @:) I have some general questions for all of you armchair physicists
> @:) out there in GZG Mailing List land.

> @:)	1.  Which would be better suited for space combat: lasers or
> @:) particle beam weapons?

railguns firing explosive (nuclear perhaps, I'll explain why later)
rounds. more damage then a laser, less spread problems then a particle
beam.

> @:)	2.  How does a directed energy beam weapon damage a target?

it heats it up. you'd have to keep the beam aimed at the same spot for a
while, and hope that the target isn't really well heat shielded...

> @:)	3.  Which sort of missile warhead would be better suited for
> @:) space combat?  Nuke or kinetic kill?

nuclear. (wait a minniit! let me explain!)

most folks here agree that you can't use nuclear bombs in space. No air
to
transmit EMP or a shockwave. so they suggest kinetic kill devices which
must hit the target directly. However, once you hit the target directly,
you introduce the superstructure of the ship to your missle. The
superstructure is PERFECT for transmitting EMP, the atmosphere of the
ship
(if it has one) would help as well... and wouldn't you rather hit the
target with an EXPLODING telophone pole instead of a regular telephone
pole?

> @:)	5.  How would one target a enemy ship in space (realistically
> @:)	that is)?

fire-and-forget bullets for your railguns that get in proximity of the
target then activate a quick burst of thrust to redirect and aim from up
close...

Brian Lojeck
lojeck@mizar.usc.edu
Entertainment Technology Center