Re: One question that's plagued me about Full Thrust

In a message dated 97-09-26 14:56:25 EDT, you write:

<< Tim,
 
 Hope you don't mind the barrage of mail but I have a question that's
 bothered me ever since I first picked up FT and later after picking up
 MT:
 
 If we have the tech to put rail guns on aerospace and ground vehicles,
 why are the Kra'vak the only ones to use them on starships.  It would
 seem a natural evolution as would the armoring of a ship.  I've never
 gotten an answer to his from Geo-hex here in the States when I asked.
 Care to shed a little light on it?
 
 Thanks,
 
 Gil >>

It is probably more a case of preceived practicality that would make
human
forces choose particle beams over railguns.  Railguns, while powerful,
have a
distinct lag between firing and impact allowing the target a chance to
dodge
whereas particle beams are lightspeed weapons.	Railguns useful for
space
combat are rather long and unable to be turret mounted (in the FT
universe at
least)(or make use of multipule emitter arrays for the same weapon which
is
probably one other way beam weapons get their multpule arcs) and would
require multipule weapons to cover the open arcs.  Higher accuracy with
ability to cover multipule arcs with the same weapon would be high
incentives
to pursue particle beam technology for space combat and leave railguns
relegated to ground combat.

The Kra' Vak may never have hit upon weapons-effective particle beam
systems.
 Given their high thrust, high manuverablity craft (and an apparent love
for
close range combat) the railgun would have seemed to be the best weapon
system.  Just two different ways of approaching the problem based on
associated technologies.

Morgan Keyes
Sine Pari
Airborne All The Way!!